Steering Committee
3:00 – 3:05 |
Introductions,
opening remarks |
3:05 --3:30 |
Continue Discussion: Paradigms for change |
3:30 -- 3:40 |
Oregon Graduate Requirements |
3:40 -- 3:50 |
Workforce 2005 Taskforce -- History, Charter, Status Plans |
3:50 -- 4:00 |
OMSI and ACCC Proposal |
4:00 -- 4:30 |
Subcommittee activity monitoring
|
4:30 -- 4:50 |
All OPAS workshop
|
4:50 -- 4:55 |
Status/Updates:
|
4:55 – 5:00 |
Scheduling of next meeting and adjournment |
Notes: download the pdf
OPAS Steering Committee #8
July 11, 2006 3:00 – 5:00
Attendees: Dick Knight, Bruce Schafer, Jo Oshiro, Roger Rennekamp, Don Kirkwood, Jay Bockelman, Michal Young, Susan Boyanovsky, Ben Manny, Di Saunders
Paradigms for Curricular Change/Strategic Alternatives
(supporting material: paradigms – http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/ParadigmsforCurriculumEnhancementE.pdf
Criteria – http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/ParadigmCriteriaB.pdf;
Synthesis - http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/OPAS%20Education%20GoalsB.pdf)
Based on last meeting’s discussions of the three Paradigms and the criteria for choosing among them, Dick Knight attempted to use the “new 3 R’s – Rigor, Relevance, and Relationships” as a lens to focus a synthesis of what we liked about each paradigm and how it serviced our consensus goals:
- Greater academic preparedness for Engineering &Applied Science careers
- Increased student choice of Engineering &Applied Science Careers
The resulting document is “OPAS Education GoalsB.pdf” and is intended as a discussion platform for the committee and eventually, as a communication tool to policy makers and implementers that will, in part, demonstrate that the OPAS Initiative serves to increase the rigor and relevance of K-14 education for most students, as well as empowering some students to pursue Engineering and Applied Science Careers.
Committee members had few comments during the meeting, but are welcome to study the document and make further comments and suggestions to Dick.
OPAS Staff Work:
Jeremy Tucker and Ken Cone are reviewing state standards in science, engineering, and technology and making executive summaries of the most notable. Ken is surveying and summarizing some widely available inquiry-based science curricula websites to determine the level, if any, of engineering problem-solving or design practice contained in the described products.
DonK: CSTA has done a summary report of an international study of similar scope which was recently posted on the OPAS Diversity wiki. (This info passed to Ken 7/12/06 – jo.)
Bruce: At the June ASEE conference, the paper “Infusing Engineering Concepts into Technology Education” by Merrill, Childress, et al. was presented. This survey of various projects and agencies involved in integrating engineering into what are traditionally separate disciplines focuses on technology education, but includes science and math as well, and its bibliography could be an important source of supporting data for the OPAS Initiative. (supporting materials: paper - http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/923_Infusing_Eng.pdf)
Oregon State Board of Education
(supporting materials: Draft “The Oregon Diploma” - http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/diploma-template.pdf; Board of Ed Topic Summaries, May/June 2006 - http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/2006june15highschooldiplomadiscussion.pdf )
Dick: While coming up with a clear conceptual model is important, it is even more important to doing something with it. The Oregon State Board of Education retreat in August may be a good opportunity to do so.
Bruce: The Board has not come anywhere close to saying this is what they believe on the subject of minimum High School graduation requirements. The draft “The Oregon Diploma” is essentially a minority report prepared for OSBE by Kristen Bryant, who has been an ORTOP volunteer and an ETIC grant reviewer. The board now has two decisions to make: is the fact that some high schools are requiring specific Carnegie Units mean Oregon should add CU to the requirement? If we add a third year of science, should it be less prescribed so that Computer Science, Engineering, and possibly Technology could classes fulfill the requirement? All the evidence is that thoughtful people are carefully analyzing a difficult, multi-faceted problem. Do we want or need to insert ourselves into this conversation? What would OPAS say? Are we ready to make a recommendation? This debate is central to OSBE, not OPAS. Bruce doesn’t see this as window of opportunity for sticking our standard in the ground.
DonK: If the board chooses specific courses such Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, and CS and Engineering don’t count, then a lot of CS curricula & programs will be negatively impacted due to student’s scheduling constraints and program availability. Just prescribing more of the same rote-learning, look, listen & test will not help further OPAS goals. Cannot reduce rigor, and must increase relevance.
Dick: OPAS has, rightly, a narrow focus – we can’t be expecting all High Schools to require all students to fulfill the course requirements of student matriculating as an engineering freshman at an engineering honors program. OPAS should not get involved in prescriptive requirements, but we require that students have access to curriculum and programs for a world class education. Ultimately rigor must be set in the context of global competitiveness.
Susan: I believe there is an opportunity to weigh in on science and mathematics with the board as there is not too much agreement amongst the board yet. The board is looking for insight on science and math, and may be empanelling some discussions during the retreat.
Jay: Another factor in these issues is that some degree requirements at OSU have been reduced (number of credit hours) e.g., CS. This is due to some federal requirements tied to financial aid. Therefore universities are expecting students to be better prepared on entry.
Workforce 2005 taskforce update (Susan)
The 73rd legislature passed SB 364 to look at Professional Technical Education (PTE) in grades 7-12 and 13-14 focusing on High School and Community College transitions and High School programs. The task force members represent universities, Community Colleges, businesses, and workforce boards. Recommendations are due to the legislature by the end of July:
- what can we do to improve PTE?
- Policy recommendations.
Because PTE so big, so much to do, the task force is brainstorming policy action items and currently has a laundry list of talking points:
- Changing “PTE” to “CTE” Career and Technical Education following national trends
- CTE should be part of the virtual school district and distance education portal
- Review potential for virtual career academy consortium – what would the model look like? How would it be coordinated?
- More CTE courses that match employment needs; follow industry trends & state certificate and degree programs already in place
- Incentives or policies that encourage statewide articulation agreements; the need for dedicated funding
- Policies on pre-service and in-service teacher preparation programs
- Improve turnaround on program approval
- Standardize dual credit fees
Dick What is the guiding vision of what CTE is and where is it all going?
Susan: The taskforce is looking at systems issues, because the state has been seeing changes in High Schools around the numbers of CTE programs, trying to understand and overcome barriers to offering such programs. The money part is going to be interesting. These programs are expensive
Bruce: A politically savvy group saw disinvestment in CTE across the state, thence the bill.
DonK: The overlap of CTE with academic track curricula is fairly recent. OPAS could make recommendations. Industry could fund specific teachers. Losing teachers means losing programs.
OMSI/ACCC Proposal (Dick)
(supporting materials: cover memo - http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/ACCC_SummitProp_RevRIK2.pdf ; proposal - http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/OPAS%20Proposal%20June%2006.pdf )
OMSI’s proposal, with Ray Vandiver as the Principal Investigator, is a substantially less costly reworking of a proposal written in response to the ETIC/OPAS RFP issued in the fall of 2005. The project is a conference/workshop of STEM-related co-curricular providers, hosted and organized by OMSI, with the intent of increasing networking, knowledge, and cooperation amongst such providers and facilitating the collection of data about such programs. The current ACCC (Alignment and Coordination: Curricular and Co-curricular) does not at the moment see how to move ahead if this or a similar proposal is not funded. While they have OMSI’s attention and commitment to this project, they’d like to move ahead rather than spend the time searching out alternate funding sources.
- DonK: a lot of really good things are going on out there. I don’t see anything bad coming out of this. Some Community Colleges have funds to support co-curricular work, and may be another source of funding.
- Roger Rennekamp: 4H had a science, engineering technology summit in January; producing a lot of spinoffs and lot of good energy – got people talking. Roger would be on a steering committee for the OMSI event.
A motion was made and seconded to endorse this proposal; it passed with 6 yeas and 1 abstention. Jo will help Bruce format this request for funding for presentation to ETIC.
Committees Flow of Info
(supporting materials: diagram - http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/InfoFlowBetweenCommitteesA.pdf )
Bruce presented a diagram; he’s looking for patterns and opportunities to optimize the flow of information and coordination of subcommittees. The possibility of combining Career Pathways with Alignment and Coordination: System-Wide was discussed. Susan Boyanovsky will talk to Bruce offline.
Jo will communicate this information to subcommittee chairs for their comments and suggestions.
Jo summarized subcommittee activity, which has slowed down somewhat due to summer scheduling issues. The SCC subcommittee wiki has been released to all committee members. A time-sensitive summary is available on the OPAS Subcommittee webpage at http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/index.html#ACSW_Status.
Fall Workshop
OPAS Staff dropped the ball here; they owe the committee a list of concrete goals to be accomplished during such a workshop before the committee will decide whether to move forward with this project.
The River
(supporting material: graphic - http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/stem5.pdf )
This is another communication device, ultimately a static representation of an animation, to be used in presenting the OPAS Initiative to policy makers, implementers, and persons of influence. A new version was presented, discussed, and recommendations for further revision given to Di Saunders.
Next Meeting: Tuesday, August 8, 3:00-5:00 at the Capital Center