Student Success: Access, Motivation, Retention (SAMR) Subcommittee

Notes from the Meeting of April 27, 2006

Committee Chair: Eileen Boerger.

Location: Capital Center, Beaverton

Agenda posted, April 24, 2006 - Jo

 

Agenda posted, April 2, 2006

 

Bruce will be standing in for Eileen, who has a conflict since scheduling the meeting.

9:00-9:10

Opening remarks
           

9:10-9:20

Overview of OPAS efforts

  • Overall purpose, mission, themes
  • How this subcommittee fits in the OPAS efforts
9:20-9:50

Review of proposed SAMR mission based on last meeting’s discussion : "Increase the number of students who go into, stay with, and succeed in Engineering and Applied Science Career paths."
9:50 -10:20

Review of proposed focus of Committee

  • Rethinking K12 standards should be removed to another committee; can’t have much impact on national engineering curriculum such as ABET.
  • Ensuring access – should be removed to another committee.
  • Use motivation as a focus to meet the mission
  • Target middle school, high school and undergraduate college levels
  • Interest/attraction à preparation
  • Motivate students to go into engineering and applied sciences
  • Retain students once they are in engineering and applied sciences


10:20 - 10:30 Next Steps

 

Notes:

OPAS Student Success:  Access, Motivation & Retention Subcommittee
Meeting Notes: April 27, 2006

Bruce Schafer chaired the meeting as Eileen Boerger was unavoidably detained.

Attendees: Ellen Momsen (OSU); David Coronado (PSU/MESA); Bob Dunton (Corbett School District); Bruce Schafer (OUS); Jo Oshiro (OUS- OPAS Staff Support)

OPAS Steering Committee activities (Bruce):

  • The Steering Committee’s strategy is being refined by Di Saunders, Director of Communications, OUS.
  • Bruce has made presentations of varying length conveying OPAS strategy to and getting feedback from the Oregon Business Council; OSBHE EDP Work Group; OACTE Conference break-out session; OSBHE AEED Work Group; the Governor’s Office; and Senator Ryan Deckert.  Reactions have been positive.
  • The Steering Committee approved the submission of  a placeholder policy option package with a deadline of April 27 for the written description. Bruce will ask for  for $100K in staffing for the biennium and $1 million for an RFP process.  He is pursuing two avenues of funding at the moment: an OPAS policy option package and having OPAS as a part of the ETIC policy option package.  Pursuing foundation grant funds may be done in future.
  • The Steering Committee agreed to call this effort the OPAS Initiative, and change the OPAS Summit 2005 logo to reflect that.

How this subcommittee fits into overall OPAS efforts (Bruce)

  • The OPAS Initiative is broad enough to need coordinated effort from many different directions.  Each committee has latitude in defining its mission, while remaining open to critique from the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee may be used as a conduit to cross-pollinate with other committees and to advise and consent.
  • The number of subcommittees may change:  the advantages (easier communication, more seamless cross-pollination; possibly reduced staffing) of smaller, more focused  subcommittees must be traded off against the interdependence of those foci, the possibly disenfranchising process of working in a larger group that often meets all or in part by conference call, and even more difficulty in scheduling.   A Public Relations committee may be added; now Bruce or the Steering Committee handles these assignments.

Review of the Mission Statement:
The final result of an illuminating discussion was this mission:  “Increase the number and diversity of students who choose, stay with, and succeed in Engineering and Applied Science Career paths.”   Other points made:

  • MS-HS transition: students are not choosing courses that exclude STEM in high school & college; they have very little course choice in Middle School.
  • Junior year in High School is an important choice point, when kids start locking down their interests.
  • Freshman year in college is a choice point; junior year also.
  • What are the measures of success as we look at various age students? Possible examples are “among the top 10 in growth of STEM freshman”, “10% growth”.  Measures are difficult in high school – would an entry/exit survey be possible? Another possible metric is class selection in sophomore/junior/senior HS year. All agreed that metrics are important and merit further discussion.
  • [Jo notes a subsequent meeting of the Alignment & Coordination System-Wide (ACSW) subcommittee settled on a metric of number of students enrolled in Physics, Chemistry, Calculus, and AP classes divided by total enrollment and tracked over four years might be an achievable index across several school districts; committee members are to bring data to the next meeting for a long working session.]

Proposed focus:

  • SAMR will not focus on K12 standards.
  • Student motivation is necessary, but not sufficient if there is no access.
  • Access is more than availability.  The consensus was to focus on access where it intersects with motivation, affecting both initial choice and retention:
    • ensuring that students feel welcome,
    • ensuring students have awareness and understanding of all available options,
    • eliminating or reducing income barriers,
    • allowing incremental choice rather than an academy choice at 8th grade to HS transition.

Discussion of Proposed Target Audience:

  • What are the tipping points for engineering students?  Do we need to look at course availability?
  • Retention issues & strategies are very different between Middle School, High School, and undergraduate students.
    • Middle School – what are kids excluding from their future?  This is a sociocultural, not curricular, choice.  They are deciding what they know, personal identity, and may disengage from their own education.  The vast majority of the student’s day is dictated by Oregon Standards and State Testing.  Any intervention in the curriculum greater than an occasional project is not going to happen – there is no room.  Priorities are global awareness of possibilities, and the general level of academic achievement.
    • High School – what are kids choosing for their future? Even students who are taking college-prep level may not be aware of engineering as a possibility.  Some relatively easy early wins can be made in getting HS juniors to choose the harder math, the fourth math, another science instead of something easier.  Many seniors do not even stay in the building for a full school day;  Oregon does not have the capacity in physical classroom space or qualified teachers to offer all juniors and seniors additional science and math classes, much less technology, CS, or engineering classes.  Bob Dunton estimates a minimum of 5 years to build that capacity.
    • Consensus: focus on High School first, emphasizing grades 9 & 10 – educate and advocate for career awareness and course choice.  Algebra II is an important gate in the path to college

Next steps:

  • How would we motivate students to choose engineering & applied science? Possibilities:
    • Program modeled on ETIC CS Taskforce GetReal campaign.
      • Printed materials must be coupled with speakers and workshops to engage kids (David).
    • Create a course.
      • work with Industry to enlarge the science and math offerings at the HS level (Bob)
    • Find enrichment programs & grow them. 
      • 1) in the classroom or
      • 2) supplement to the classroom
    • Add engineering content to math and science; help teachers do that and provide resources & tools
      • Must work with the teacher’s curriculum, not take it over.
    • Remove barriers:
      • school counseling often a tremendous barrier – counselors focus on students immediate past; whether or not counselors have time to give good advice, they are giving advice and scheduling students into classes – which forces the kids into tracks.
      • Teachers are underutilized as a course-choice advice source.
      • There is tremendous social pressure to not take hard courses in senior year, often from parents.
      • The educational system is not prepared for all students to have high educational aspirations.
    • Consensus: Teachers and counselors are our optimal leverage points.

Action Items:

  • Jo will summarize this discussion for the Marketing subcommittee; touching especially on the need for different approaches from Middle School to High School, and the need to target teachers and counselors as well as students.

Next meeting:
Jo will poll for the target dates of

  • Tuesday           May 23            9:00 - 10:30
  • Wednesday      May 24            9:00 – 10:30
  • Thursday          May 25            9:00 – 10:30.
  •  

Expect a slight delay as Eileen is out of the country.

Respectfully Submitted by Jo Oshiro.

 

 

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