Alignment & Coordination: System-Wide (ACSW) Subcommittee

Meeting Notes for Friday April 28, 2006

Committee Chair: Susan Boyanovsky

Next Meeting:Susan has asked for a postponement of the Friday June 9, 11:00 - 3:00 meeting time decided at the previous meeting. She suggests June 23 or 30, also 11:00 - 3:00 at OIT's Metro Center near Clackamas Town Center. Please let Jo know your schedule constraints.

ACSW Proposed Mission:
Develop guidelines, policies, and tools to increase preK-20 pre-engineering and applied sciences articulation.  The focus of our work is on articulation between and among education sectors for pre-engineering and applied science pathways.

  • Align engineering knowledge and skills by supporting the University of Oregon ETIC project that establishes a framework of 100-200 level engineering courses, the Oregon Skill Sets, and the Engineered Communities subcommittee that seeks to develop common course outcomes for key engineering courses;
  • Collect system-wide data about engineering and applied science student transfer course and retention patterns;
  • Review secondary engineering technology programs and courses;
  • Investigate alignment and transfer between high school/community colleges and the Oregon University System pre major programs of study, “How far away from alignment are we from OUS?
  • Develop a model policy that guides pre-engineering and applied sciences transfer and articulation;
  • Conduct a follow-up study with pre-engineering and applied science students (connect with Larry Flick’s resources)

Recommendations:  The primary strategy from this group was to create a statewide council that has both strategic and tactical levels.  This council would be tasked to develop policy recommendations, and coordinate existing and new engineering and applied science programs. A supporting strategy was to immediately restart and expand a dormant “Engineered Community” group to take on skill set development, career pathways, and other recommendations of the Summit.   This latter group may become the tactical level of the statewide council once the council is up and running.

Resources:

  • Proposal submitted to ETIC by Dave Conley/ Educational Policy Improvement Center (pdf)

Agenda for the meeting of Friday, April 28 -

Meeting outcome


1:00 - 1:05

Introductions, opening remarks, adjust agenda as needed (Sue)

1:05-1:15

Steering Committee and other OPAS Subcommittees Debrief   (Sue)
1:15-2:50

Edit vision statement and activities; prioritize  (all)

Create budget for activities

Plan highest priority activity (action items, responsibilities, and timelines)

 
2:50 - 3:00 Scheduling of next meeting and adjournment (Sue)

 

Notes please note Jo was experiencing technical difficulties & missed chunks of conversation. Missing information eagerly sought. - Posted May 30, 2006, with apologies for the lag time. To download a pdf, click here.

OPAS
Alignment and Coordination: System-Wide
April 28, 2006 Meeting Notes

Attending:  Susan Boyanovsky (Community Colleges and Workforce Development - State of Oregon), Robert Dunton (Corbett SD), Dave Krumbein (Blue Mountain Community College), Gary Naseth (Oregon Institute of Technology), Sam Tupou (4J Lane School District), David Johnson (University of Oregon and Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute), Scott Huff (Portland Community College), and Jo Oshiro (ETIC and OUS),

Absent:  Ginger Redlinger (Oregon Department of Education), Bruce Schafer (Engineering Technology Industry Council and Oregon University System), and Ray VanDiver (VP Exhibits, Oregon Museum of Science and Industry).

OPAS Strategy and Working Committees Update  (Jo Oshiro)
The OPAS steering committee is in the middle of refining its mission statement and considering OPAS housing options.  Currently, OPAS is coordinated thru’ ETIC.  With the OPAS scope much larger than ETIC, the steering committee is looking at various options including the formation of a non-profit, housing the work of OPAS thru the Chancellor’s office or thru’ another entity.  ETIC has submitted a policy option package (a legislative request for funding) to support OPAS coordination and grant funding for pre-engineering and applied science projects around the state.
Working Committees (status as of May 30):

  • Career Pathways:  Has not met to date;  Susan needs to step down as temporary chair due to other commitments.
  • Alignment & Coordination: Curricular & Co-curricular (ACCC) – Dick Knight:
    • ACCC Mission: Using best practices from the co-curricular world in classroom instruction and vice versa. Identifying ways that the two learning environments can complement each other and address gaps in each system.
    • 2 foci identified:
        • Communication and marketing of existing engineering and applied science co-curricular opportunities as a community resource that is visible and easily accessible to students/parents seeking engaging extracurricular opportunities, teachers/schools seeking collaborative partners, and professionals/companies seeking an outlet for volunteer contributions to education. Cooperation with BEC (Business Education Compact) and OMSI under development.
        • Achieve student relevance and engagement through inquiry and project based curriculum as keys to improving education outcomes and capturing student interest in engineering and applied sciences. Numerous exemplary teachers and programs exist within the schools and there are a number of successful co-curriculars as models and/or resources. However, there is considerable change required to incorporate these “best practices”systematically.   ACCC may not be the best home for this campaign, but will lead until/unless a better home is found.
  • Diversity (DIVR) – Eda Davis-Butts:
    Committee members continue their work on identifying existing resources, reviewing them, and highlighting best practices. An electronic collaboration tool (wiki) has been set up to help with this work.  Jo is wrestling with the technical end to make it available and easy for committee members. Ivan Lumala, Academic Relations Manager, Microsoft, recently joined the Diversity Committee.
  • Instructional Professional Development (IPD) – Chair Winnie Miller resigned in May due to family constraints.  The committee is in the process of identifying action items and revising its mission statement.
  • Marketing Engineering & Applied Science Careers (MKTC) – Di Saunders: 
    • is in the process of speaking with other subcommittee chairs and experts in order to better understand the scope of each groups' work, and the most effective ways to reach students, parents, and teachers.
        • Skip Rochefort from OSU Engineering, and Eda Davis Butts, who directs the SMILE program at OSU, spoke at the April meeting (for a summary of their remarks, see the Marketing Subcommittee website).
    • is also working to determine how we can assist other subcommittees in facilitating their work, as well as what the best use of the Marketing group will be to support OPAS as a whole.
  • Standards, Courses, and Curricula – Sean Gallagher:
    • The first meeting was May 24.  A lively discussion of the three Paradigms for curricular change ensued.  See the Steering Committee notes for May 16; SCC notes should be posted soon.
  • Student Success: Access, Motivation, Retention (SAMR) – Eileen Boerger:
    Revised Mission: Increase the number and diversity of students who choose, stay with, and succeed in Engineering and Applied Science Career paths.  Further discussion centered on these points:
    • Motivation is necessary but not sufficient.
    • Access is more than course availability within a geographical area.
    • Transitions are key – Middle School to High School, Sophomore to Junior Year, High School to College.  Retention strategies differ at each level.
    • Teachers and Counselors are an underutilized resource for course and degree/career choice.

ACSW Revised Mission Statement
Develop guidelines, policies, and tools to increase preK-20 pre-engineering and applied sciences articulation.  The focus of our work is on articulation between and among education sectors for pre-engineering and applied science pathways.

  • Align engineering knowledge and skills by supporting the University of Oregon ETIC project that establishes a framework of 100-200 level engineering courses, the Oregon Skill Sets, and the Engineered Communities subcommittee that seeks to develop common course outcomes for key engineering courses;
  • Collect system-wide data about engineering and applied science student transfer course and retention patterns;
  • Review secondary engineering technology programs and courses;
  • Investigate alignment and transfer between high school/community colleges and the Oregon University System pre major programs of study, “How far away from alignment are we from OUS?
  • Develop a model policy that guides pre-engineering and applied sciences transfer and articulation;
  • Conduct a follow-up study with pre-engineering and applied science students (connect with Larry Flick’s resources)

 

Discussion:

  • Conley’s work for the UO/EPIC grant from ETIC is very valuable: reflects back to skill sets, drills down to K12.
  • Looking at articulation and preparation through all levels of the system is important;  anecdotal evidence is that one reaches a certain level and is locked out of some alternatives because of a lack of  preparation at the previous level.
  • Some of the articulation work is being done by the Engineered Communities groups at the Community Colleges; this work does not, however, include the science and math classes that are also important prerequisites to further technical work, and these probably cannot be pulled under the Engineering banner.
  • Ongoing articulation work being done for AAOT  (Associate of Arts, Oregon Transfer).
  • Many people are now trying to articulate courses, but it is a moving target, and state standards complicate the issue as they are for 10th grade, not for 12th and the potential transfer to college.
  • Collecting system-wide data about student transfer and retention patterns is difficult, as we are not centralized, so data is not always comparable.  Hard to identify some courses we should target, as they are not identified as PTE.  AP Physics, Calculus, AP Biology, Pre-Calc, Algebra II, Computer Science.
  • Capacity is a huge issue:  vast majority of HS do not offer three years of science and have neither the staffing nor the physical space to do so.
  • Bob Dunton: “Our challenge as adults is to work up the resources to demand more from these kids;  most kids respond pretty well to that.”
  • Teacher preparation is a huge issue.
  • Community Colleges have a split personality, a huge issue that is not going to go away:  they need to handle GED and vocational people as well as university-prep people.
  • Possible sources for additional data:  COSA, LBCC Consortium.

Action Items
As a starting point, the committee will collect pre-engineering and applied science data from their immediate sphere of influence to better understand current programs, pre-engineering curricular variances, student enrollments, and transfer patterns. Advanced Placement items were selected because of the assumption that AP science/adv math students are good engineering candidates.  The scope of this research is driven by 1) we don’t know what data is easily accessible, 2) we have a little budget for research, and 3) it would be nice to have some data and recommendations as start our next legislative session in January.  This research begets more research and will help shape policy, guidelines, tools, and any follow-up action items. 


Data/Responsible Party:

  • High School Data Elements (number of students/total enrollment)  AP Math, AP Science, Calculus, Pre-Calculus/Trig, Algebra II, Physics, Chemistry.  (Everyone)
  • Number of ODE approved secondary PTE Engineering Programs; Number of students, composition (types of courses) (Ginger) 
  • Number SBE Engineering Technology programs by CIP code (15.XXXX) approved at community colleges; unduplicated headcounts last three years, degrees and certificates conferred. ENGR or GE unduplicated headcounts-students taking these courses at Oregon community colleges.  (Sue)
  • General Education Outcome Statements.  These are still in development and are subject to change.  Here’s the link:  http://www.ous.edu/aca/forums.html   You are welcome to comment thru’ this web site.  (Sue)
  • CAL and Capital Center data and engineering course data: How many students and what courses do they take?  (Jo)

Additional Informational Items:

  • Approved engineering  tech course outlines (Sue)
  • Recap of General Education meetings 4/26 (Sue)
  • State Assessment for 10th grade (Sue)
  • Larry Flick’s NSF grant application focusing on Middle School Teachers (Jo)
  • Fred Haynes, LBCC, NSF Planning grant (Jo)
  • Attempt to pry loose some recap of Engineered Communities (Jo)

 

Next Meeting:  To be announced.  (It was originally schedule for June 9, but Sue has a conflict and can’t make it. Jo will try to reschedule.)
 

 

For questions or information regarding this webpage, please email Jo Oshiro or call (503) 725.2910.