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

Meeting Notes - #3, July 19 2006

Committee Chair: Eileen Boerger.

Agenda for the Meeting of July 19, 2006...

9:00 - 9:15	Opening remarks Updates on OPAS Steering Committee - Bruce Subcommittee Information Flow Diagram - Bruce
9:15 - 9:45	Recap of focus on teachers, parents, students Analysis phase Report on MESA teachers focus group – David Report on other activities (such as surveys for parents and students) - Jo
9:45 - 10:15	Discussion of next analysis steps (30 minutes)            What else do we need to do?
10:15 - 10:30	Next Steps/ Review of Actions Next Meeting

Notes:

OPAS Student Success:  Access, Motivation, Retention (SAMR) #3
Meeting Notes for July 19, 2006

Attendees: Marcia Fischer (PSU), Jo Oshiro (OPAS/OUS), Eileen Boerger (Agilis Solutions/ ETIC), Bruce Schafer (OUS), David Coronado (PSU/MESA)

Update of Steering Committee Discussions (Bruce):
(supporting materials:
 Synthesis - http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/OPAS%20Education%20GoalsB.pdf
Paradigms – http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/ParadigmsforCurriculumEnhancementE.pdf
Small Schools - http://www.e3oregon.org/small_schools/FactSheet_031028.pdf )

Ongoing discussions in the steering committee have been using the Three Paradigms for Curricular Enhancement to help focus priorities, possibilities, strategies and tactics:

• Academic Enhancement – Propagate rigor-centered best practices such as AP and IB; introduce more engineering problem solving examples and career exposure; recommend best practices to increase diversity.
• Technical Enhancement – Propagate best practices of technical courses, currently serving as elective programs, around CAD, Architecture, Electronics, Robotics, Computer Science, etc. as both gateway programs to interest students in Engineering and Applied Science, and as in-depth vehicles to cement their interest and preparedness for post-secondary work.
• Redesign – Propagate best practices centered on inquiry-based science education, hands-on practice, process, and increased relevance through application and in-depth learning rather than broad-based, shallow diligent drill on facts.

Dick Knight has synthesized these in hopes of furthering our progress toward specific strategies, tactics and recommendations. He has related the most promising elements of each of the Three Paradigms to the new 3 R’s (Rigor, Relevance, Relationships) from the small schools model and shown how these elements relate to our overarching goals:

• Increase the academic preparedness Engineering & Applied Science students
• This could imply increasing the preparedness of all students in STEM subjects, which allies us with the drive for improvement by NCLB, the drive for more health sciences students, and the drive for tracking a greater proportion of students as college-prep.
• Increase the number and diversity of students choosing Engineering and Applied Science careers
• Because of their increased preparation, their success at these courses of study and careers should also increase.

The Steering Committee continues to agonize over how to prioritize and how to formulate specific recommendations.  Input from committees is welcome.

Eileen:  How does this relate to what we are doing?

Bruce:  These models and following these discussions can help provide guidance to individual committees; because the specifics have not been decided, there is an opportunity for committees to influence the discussions.

Flow of Information between Subcommittees Diagram (Bruce)

(supporting materials: diagram - http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/InfoFlowBetweenCommitteesA.pdf)

We are trying to find optimal paths of communication without ruling any out; we are not forcing communication through the Steering Committee.  Following a previous Steering Committee discussion on whether a given subcommittee is focused on What to Do or How to Do, certain committees, especially Career Pathways (CPTH), Student Success (SAMR), and Diversity (DIVR), appear more likely to come up with autonomous projects.  There has been some discussion that Career Pathways will join Alignment and Coordination: System-Wide (ACSW).

The consensus of today’s discussion was that all committees should give input to Marketing (MKTC).
 
Oregon State Board of Education Update (Bruce)

The Oregon State Board of Education (OSBE) is considering adding another year of science to the minimum graduation requirements; a similar decision was made by the legislature to add a third year of math.  The next question:  what counts?  This issue has two dimensions: 

• how advanced a science class is required?  The traditional sequence is General science, then biology, then chemistry, then physics.  Should a student be able to fulfill this requirement without reaching chemistry in this sequence?
•  Should these classes be spread across disciplines? Should engineering, CAD, Computer Science and similar classes count?

Note that none of this really affects the traditional college-bound student; they’ve already got it covered.

Marcia:  OPAS should weigh in on the question of what counts.

Bruce:  OSBE has not reached a consensus on these issues.  ODE points out that if you implement this requirement too quickly, a disservice is done to students whose Middle School curricula was not geared to prepare them for three or four years of science classes.  OSBE will have a near day-long discussion of this in August.  How to be strategic and still leave room for the talented teacher to work their magic at the local level?

During the June board meeting, it sometimes sounded like the question about which courses should count towards the requirement would be tossed to the State Assessment and Content Panel for Science (SACPS).  OPAS Steering Committee members Bill Becker and Steve Day sit on that panel.  OSBE will be sending a survey to teachers and the public in late July; we will consider circulating that to OPAS members and our list of interested parties.  (Update 7/20/06:  Bruce and Jo have seen the survey, and returned comments on unclear verbiage.  We will be circulating it shortly, whether or not it is revised.)
 
Analysis of Current Activities:

Recap of Previous Conclusions:
Our energy should really focus on teachers, parents, and students in grades 8 &9; counselors are necessary but not sufficient. First, an analysis phase:

• For teachers, students
• What gets them interested? What do they need?
• For parents
• How do we promote consistency of message in both home and school domains?

A summary of the State Assessment and Content Panel for Science was requested at the meeting of June 8th; it is found at http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/SACPS-SummaryMay2006.pdf.
 
MESA Teachers Focus Group (David)
(supporting documents: meeting notes - http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/IPD/Notes_062006.html )

MESA programs have been running in several states for many years, and post great
participation and success statistics. Most MESA graduates go on to college in STEM
fields and successfully complete degree programs.  This meeting focused on what works for teachers in general, but especially MESA teachers.

How does it work in the schools?  The MESA “brand” brings building and district support.  There are a couple of implementation models, teachers/schools can choose the most appropriate for their school’s culture and constraints:

• after school - usually once a week;
• in-school
• elective (self-selecting) or
• in-class one day a week (captive audience). 

There is definitely a trickle-down effect to other teachers who can borrow resources, curricula, and pedagogical methods.

Our guest teachers were:

• Michelle York – veteran math teacher; veteran MESA teacher within small schools initiative, Portland Public Schools (PPS)
• Misty Scevola – Votech teacher of math and science at an alternative High School for At-Risk students – 1st year in MESA, PPS
• Susan Duncan – Middle School science teacher, 1st year in MESA, Beaverton School District

People and connections are a big factor for these teachers, both the content specialists, and fellow teachers.  The peer support network fostered by monthly dinners really helps both new and veteran teachers.  The ability to access content specialists, and receive respectful training and access in various applications and subject areas is also very important to teachers, as well as the boost that the kids get from seeing these people in the classroom.

For students, peer networking resulting in social pressure and the goal-driven, event-based planning are important.

For administrators, buildings, and districts, the metrics and PR provided by event participation help develop buy-in and support.

Jo: Through various discussions in committees and resource reviews, it has become obvious to me that teachers as a group really value that personal connection.  The light finally went on and I realized that teachers are interpersonal experts, so of course that’s their comfort zone – so their support networks are relationship-based.  Providing libraries of information and equipment and one-time classes are really not optimal.  And then, we’ve been talking with exceptional teachers, which is not an easily replicatable model.  The big question is how to provide freedom for the magic of a great teacher while guarding against damage by bad teachers?

David:  We are working on collecting and collating data on teacher and student participation now.  There is no longitudinal data.  MESA programs are in the Beaverton, Hillsboro, Portland, and Gresham School Districts; have been in Oregon since 1985. Current OR participation 23 teachers, 600 students, which has held steady for several years. MESA was originally started in California in the 70s.

Eileen:  Is the participation consistent because of limited resources?

Marcia: Yes, funding is extremely limited.  Core funding from the state has dropped significantly since 1999 while the number of teachers, schools, students, has gone up since 99.  We are close to capacity for the budget.  We did get an ETIC grant this year.

Eileen:  Is SMILE in other states or is it only OR? (Jo: SMILE has one spinoff program in Rhode Island, started in 1994 which currently serves about 240 students.  I have asked for additional information.)

    SMILE began in 1988, serving 80 students in four middle schools. Today, the program serves more than 700 elementary, middle, and high school students, along with 60 teachers, in 35 schools. The areas served are poor, largely rural, and educationally under-served with significant numbers of American Indian and Hispanic students. Per capita income and educational achievement (rate of high school graduation, percent with college degrees) are below state averages.
Retrieved 7/20/06 from http://smile.oregonstate.edu/aboutUs_index.htm

If we want to replicate MESA results, we should also talk to similar programs:

• SMILE (Jo to get additional data);
• Other MESAs  Washington has a main office plus three other centers similar to PSU, and serves about 6000 students.  In Oregon, set up emphasizes under-represented minorities, but this is not always the case. (Jo, figure out per capita participation for WA, OR.)

Eileen:  MESA seems like it addresses all of our targets.  Maybe our committee action should be that we just grow MESA by finding it funding.

David:  We do have schools on a waiting list, whom we cannot adequately support without more funds.

Marcia/David:  MESA funding from the state budget is $151,000 per year. Washington and California MESA work closely with their legislatures to get larger earmarks.  They also work with reservations and the Native American community for funding, and also tap private corporations and foundations.  OPAS and ETIC could potentially be of great benefit to MESA by helping to work out strategies to get better funding from the legislature.

MESA would be a good program to replicate because there are numbers, history, support, and it reaches into MS.

EB:  Pose:  MESA has been around since 1985, focuses on what we wanted to focus on, so what can SAMR/OPAS do to expand this program to a wider audience?

Student Survey: 
(supporting materials: survey - http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/SAMR/SAMR_Survey.doc )

The committee agreed to pursue this.  Jo distributed a draft of three similar surveys targeting high school and college students and professional engineers.  The committee aggress this is a good thing to do.  As we are unsure of our potential returns, at this point it is probably not worth it to put a lot more time into developing a more scientific survey, but Jo will tweak it to have fewer open-ended questions.  Please have any feedback on the survey to Jo by Wednesday, July 26.

Targetting Counselors:

Jo found a couple of documents targeting counselors:

• College Handbook, A College Guidance and Information Resource For Oregon High School and Community College Counselors – published by OUS.
• Oregon’s Comprehensive Guidance and Counseling Framework – published by ODE, July 2003.

Skimming these documents did not yield any obvious opportunities for leverage.

Marcia:  We need to find some counselors and do another focus group, which would be better than skimming documents.  Jo will attempt to find some counselors – perhaps Beaverton HS, Sunset HS, Hillsboro HS, MESA Schools, Corbett School District,  Hermiston High School.

Next Meeting:  Wednesday, August 16, 9:00 – 10:30, Capital Center.

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