OPAS Motivate Workgroup

Agenda - #24 - June 2, 2009

Meeting Objective	Update the group on activity
SAME phone number	1.877.807.5706 participant id 214547
3:30 - 3:35	Meet and greet
3:35 - 3:45	OPAS, ETIC Updates ETIC Funds -- EBL and additional - No concrete decisions on changes yet Another Round of Recent Testimony to the Legislature Succeed Workgroup morphing Additional funding sources Liaison work: NSF GK-12 connections for PSU Collaborating with TechStart on minigrant for NCWIT conference/cs4hs/workshop followup for diversity best practices in CS RFP contingency planning / prep -- line up ducks in case $$ comes through Office will be moving in early August down to Unitus building at 4th and Lincoln on the edge of PSU campus
3:45 - 4:00	Review open action items Engineering Frosh Survey -- deadline is June 9 (Jo out of town June 10-12) Version 3.3 is up here or pdf -- out for review -- note that the printout is a little strange because it shows all questions, although the survey taker only sees some questions depending upon the answers given to previous questions. Thanks to those of you who've given feedback. Suggested edits: Q1 - add internships and/or on-the-job learning/training Q8 - "Brand name" -- smooth out wording, larger "other, please specify" box Q10 - program elements -- smooth out wording Q13 - gender - Please check one current majors -- allow "other" option? Inquiries out to SOU, WOU, UO -- no response yet
4:00 - 4:20	Round table update - other activity of interest -- Jo - should some OPAS workgroup(s) take up compiling the program elements/ metrics best practices as a White Paper? Additional added value to offer to foundations & connections? Starting points: David/Ryan's work here; Grant reporting as seen at All-OPAS meeting; BEST Framework. Endorse project here and kick to Steering? should we articulate the "Hand Up, Hand Off" model discussed at the All-OPAS Workshop breakout group for informals and connect it to the Motivate Phase Model and come up with some publishable page, document, or graphic? The Hand Up, Hand Off model basically is the premise that students need a variety of STEM enrichment available to them, no one program needs to do it all, but needs to pass participants (and learnings and practices) on and around.
4:20 - 4:50	eCHAMP (Ben, Don) Documentation Need to draft a template for schools to complete the specifics of their proposed engineering/technology extracurricular program including staffing & stipends meeting schedule competitions evaluation reporting and? PR -- group in place; gathering data from schools Website template is here -- now using a CMS tool, JOOMLA, hope to set up structure for participant contributions (kind of like a wiki). TechStart is hosting Status
4:50 - 5:00	Review this meeting's action items and set date for next meeting. Default date is Wednesday July 8, 2009 Items for next time: ETIC update Kris - Human Powered Vehicle event report

Agenda - #23 - April 8, 2009

Meeting Objective	Update the group on activity
SAME phone number	1.877.807.5706 participant id 214547
3:30 - 3:40	Meet and greet -- new member Vicki Z'berg
3:40 - 4:10	OPAS, ETIC Updates Results of discussions with Bruce on next steps Jo's work on Foundations & Connections OUS/ JHU CTY Robotics Day at PSU -- Jo writing 2 part retrospective; happy to share when done if of interest to others running similar events program elements -- kill, keep, add logistics Jo's blue sky: is it worth the staff time to develop a document describing an evolution of this program into a "traveling show" for OUS and perhaps CC campuses around the state, with the idea that perhaps Lynn Dierking could take and run with it as part of getting NOISE up and running? 1 day, get the kids in, 2nd day conference for educators. Lynn is in the early stages of some work that could mean NOISE lives and grows at OSU; could be some good leverage via partnership with 4-H ...
4:00 - 4:20	eCHAMP (Ben, Don, Ken) Documentation Need to draft a template for schools to complete the specifics of their proposed engineering/technology extracurricular program including staffing & stipends meeting schedule competitions evaluation reporting and? PR -- meeting including both Lemelson & Intel coming at the end of the week Website template is here (Ken) Website draft pages are here Status
4:20 - 4:30	Review open action items Jo - Engineering Frosh Survey -- deadline is early June Version 1.1 is up here or pdf -- out to the task force for review as of Tuesday April 7 -- one approval in so far (3 to go)
4:30 - 4:50	Round table update - other activity of interest -- Kris - Human Powered Vehicles Ben - Da Vinci Challenge at OMSI Mary Beth - NEM Jo - should some OPAS workgroup(s) take up compiling the program elements/ metrics best practices as a White Paper? Additional added value to offer to foundations & connections? Starting points: David/Ryan's work here; Grant reporting as seen at All-OPAS meeting; BEST Framework. Endorse project here and kick to Steering?
4:50 - 5:00	Review this meeting's action items and set date for next meeting. ETIC Meeting April 17 Next Motivate Workgroup Meeting default -- Wednesday, May 13 Jo has a conflict with the annual Chancellor's Office training

Summary of All OPAS Activity as of May 15, 2009 - pdf

Agenda - #22 - March 4, 2009

Meeting Objective	Update the group on activity
SAME phone number	1.877.807.5706 participant id 214547
3:30 - 3:35	Meet and greet
3:35 - 4:00	OPAS, ETIC Updates Results of the All-OPAS Meeting Feb 4 Constraints on funding mechanisms (Bruce via statement) "The OUS Contracts Office has informed me that any ETIC/OPAS funds that would be used to implement the OPAS strategy by organizations outside the university system will be subject to a competitive bidding process that is orchestrated via a formal Request For Proposals process like the process we used in the summer of 2007. The RFP would set out the goals and criteria that the proposals should address and would be open to all educational and non-profit organizations. Any detailed planning done OPAS committees in advance of this RFP process is for the purpose for refining the goals and the criteria that the RFP will use and to establish the general feasibility of the elements of the strategy and approximate budgets that would be used to implement the OPAS strategy during the biennium that starts July 2009." Re-allocation of teacher internship dollars? BEC will not apply for such a small amount; not cost-effective
4:00 - 4:20	eCHAMP (Ben, Don, Ken) Documentation Need to draft a template for schools to complete the specifics of their proposed engineering/technology extracurricular program including staffing & stipends meeting schedule competitions evaluation reporting and? PR Website template is here (Ken) Website draft pages are here Status
4:20 - 4:30	Review open action items Jo & Kris - Engineering Frosh Survey
4:30 - 4:50	Round table update - other activity of interest -- Kris PSU Engineering Discovery Showcase -Jan 23, 400 students, 20+ teachers; very successful PSU Design Competition - Feb 27, 17 schools, 350 students; really good time, positive student feedback on the "interactive showcase" of engineering department "cool toys" for about an hour and half in the middle of the day. Ben - ORTOP FTC - Feb 22 championship very successful 34/35 teams registered showed; total of 36 viable teams in Oregon Mary Beth - NEM Jo contacted by Pat Scruggs, consultant for Department of Labor, doing STEM Inventory; may eventually result in better access to workforce development dollars. working on foundation inventory, looking for those with "sweet spots" that align with ours, as follow-up to discussions with the Lemelson Foundation
4:50 - 5:00	Review this meeting's action items and set date for next meeting. Next Motivate Workgroup Meeting Wednesday, April 8?

Meeting record & Summary in process

Agenda - #21 - January 14, 2009

Meeting Objective	Update the group on activity
3:30 - 3:35	Meet and greet
3:35 - 3:50	OPAS, ETIC Updates Discussion between Kathy Miller and Ron Adams at the October 24 ETIC meeting concerning accountability for all awards and for trying to quantify the value of OST programs to engineering freshmen is in the minutes; Bruce and Ken had some discussion on this topic during the snow-in; Jo brought them up on activity to date but had to leave. Motivate was already working on surveying incoming (fall) college engineering/CS freshman; goal: help pinpoint motivating factors; connect OST to the big picture; refine marketing for getreal.ous.edu; info for retention. Meeting Feb 10; Jo, Kris, Brett McFarlane & Ellen Momsen (OSU); Jo has a phone meeting with Angela Aguiar at OIT (and perhaps thereafter will pursue EOU CS/MM) Ryan's AI -- draft question on importance of program elements ETIC Funds -- EBL and additional - xlsx Internships $90 K for the biennium eCHAMP $200 K ETIC Day at the Capitol being planned; probably early March Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth Family Academic Programs Robotics, PSU, April 4, 2009 Currently brainstorming potential breakout session leaders CTY agrees to 50 "outreach" spots which they will subsidize $30 of the $80 cost February 4th Meeting -- All-OPAS Workgroups, ETIC CSTF, ETIC Student Marketing What do we need to do to prepare for this? Key accomplishments Priorities for the next biennium Best practices Do we need specific inputs or resources from other workgroups?
3:50 - 4:30	eCHAMP (Ben, Don) New name: engineering CoacH And Mentor Program -- OK? Documentation Executive-level one-pager -- Latest January 14 - docx - pdf White Paper - doc - pdf Basic Contract drafted Need to draft a template for schools to complete the specifics of their proposed engineering/technology extracurricular program including staffing & stipends meeting schedule competitions evaluation reporting and? PR outreach to teachers attending PSU Engineering Discovery Showcase Friday January 23 (Thanks, Kris!) Website skeleton is done (Thanks Ken!) -- see it here Meeting being scheduled for next week or so - Ben, Don, Ken, Stevie Viane, Natasha MacDonald, Chris Brooks Status Pilot Schools Funding Draft endorsement letter - pdf
4:30 - 4:40	Review open action items (not covered elsewhere) Kris - Engineering Discovery Showcase expecting 400 students, 25 teachers on Friday January 23 ORTOP Intel Oregon FLL Championships this weekend expecting 120 teams
4:40 - 4:50	Round table update - other activity of interest -- BEC/ NEM - educator signups were off due to weather
4:50 - 5:00	Review thismeeting's action items and set date for next meeting. Jo and Bruce are working on an all-OPAS workgroup face-to-face Tuesday February 4, 2009 probably starting 9-10 and lasting 4-6 hours; we are open to suggestions for the agenda. Currently, some workgroup worktime is planned. Next Motivate Workgroup Meeting Wednesday, March 11?

Meeting Record for January 14, 2009

Summary: Motivate Workgroup members Ben Manny, Endi Hartigan, and Jo Oshiro attended an abbreviated meeting on January 14, 2009.
ETIC:

Ben would like to understand where in the budget the staff and office costs are listed; are these within the “Summary of OPAS Recommendations” or not?

Engineering Champions Program Status:

The label “eCHAMP” for the engineering champions program was discussed: a lower-case “e” may imply “electronic” rather than engineering; another organization with the name exists; a wider group may need to review the name for unintended associations; brainstorming this naming will go on the All-OPAS Workshop agenda.
The website needs to have strong crosslinking to getreal.ous.edu
Endi did a final update on the one-pager (two sided) description and delivered them to Kris Nieman for distribution to teachers at the PSU Engineering Discovery Showcase on January 23.
PR timing has slipped and we will not make a late January target to coincide with NEM.

All-OPAS Workshop:

Ben would like to see a review of grant results to date.
This may not be the best venue to prioritize the funding focus or change allocations within the stated budget; a smaller group is usually more effective.
Endi suggested Joe Holliday might be a valuable addition to the group. Joe, in addition to being the primary staff person for Dalton Miller’s OSBHE committee on Student Participation and Completion. The POPs proposed by this group did not get funded in the Governor’s Recommended Budget (GRB); their next meeting will focus their activities on what they can accomplish without directed funding. The GRB does include a 5% increase for higher education. Endi noted that the Oregon Opportunity Grants, despite their current bad press, have funded thousands and thousands more students than previously and recently federal funding was secured to help transition adult students back to postsecondary education.
Each workgroup should have a representative prepare a summary of work that’s been done and what the challenges are in moving forward.

Next Meeting: the All-OPAS Workshop will include the ETIC Computer Science Task Force and the ETIC Student Marketing Committee and is scheduled for Tuesday, February 4. The next Motivate meeting will be Wednesday, March 4, 2009 which is a change from the default date of Wednesday March 11.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, January 14, 2009

Agenda - #20 - December 10, 2008

Meeting Objective

Update the group on activity

3:30 - 3:35

Meet and greet

3:35 - 3:50

OPAS, ETIC Updates

Budget update following the Dec 1 release of the Governor's Budget
Succeed Workgroup is discussing having its next "Community Conversation" center around creating a good quality of experience in either OST or the classroom and how to measure to show you have or have not done that.
Bruce/ Ken/ Jo meeting next Monday to discuss possible additional survey of college freshman in engineering and CS

3:50 - 4:30

Engineering Champion Pilot Program Proposal Update (Ben, Don, Endi)

Proposal as submitted to Foundations(November 3) -- doc - pdf
Funding Status - Good news!
Executive-level one-pager --
- v4 - after Endi worked her magic, December 9 - doc - pdf
Discussion on next steps after the Pilot Program is launched supporting getting the full program in place:
- Media campaign for the Pilot
  - Publicity strategy: really a joint effort of OPAS & TechStart
    - Press release timing & information
- Fact finding on the financial benefits of a having such a program at a school
- other?

4:30 - 4:40

Review open action items (not covered elsewhere)

Jo
- contact info for Joyce Cresswell & Diana Bancke - done 11/12
- send out OUS demographics slide - posted 11/12
- draft formal endorsement letter - started 11/13 but then dropped; do we still need it? - doc - pdf
- ask Michele if the discussion between Kathy Miller and Ron Adams at the October 24 ETIC meeting made the minutes -- email sent 12/9 (I believe she did not hear this; the minutes are not yet posted)
- talk to Kris about OST participation data: name brands are important, is there a reasonable opportunity to re-ask juniors? Answer: not easily.
- ask Kris if the Engineering Discovery Showcase is a reasonable place to start publicizing the Engineering Champion program. Answer: yes, get her the flyer/brochure and she will distribute (part of packet?)
- find Kris and Brett McFarlane's analog at OIT. Jo has some names but has not yet contacted them as of Dec 9.
- Best Practices: resurrect for further discussion
  - Student contact hours with teachers/mentors
  - team experience
  - adult mentoring
  - hands-on engineering
  - enrichment model (improved student appreciation for classroom learning)
- Redo the rollup document; can incorporate Best Practices and logic model? - doc - pdf
- Get grant/contract info to Ben -- titles of signers, standard contract
- Talk with Bruce/ Beau/ Ken re: access and content issues for using ETIC or getreal.org for anecdotal evidence and success stories for the Engineering Champion program -- still to do.
- Make sure to have OUS legislative liaison Lisa Pinheiro's contact info (still to formalize)
- Look for exemplars of teachers paid stipends to coach engineering teams nationally (very little coming up through NWREL, PLTW, JETS)
Ben
- get Eda's logic model to Jo (program evaluation) - done - pdf
- evaluate standard contracts (OUS examples from Jo, Dianna))
Dianna - check with Natasha: does Techstart have standard grant contracts?
Kris - continue to work on OST participation data collection. What is a reasonable time frame for a prototype, given your event schedule?

4:40 - 4:50

Round table update - other activity of interest --

NOISE -- current address of the home page www.omsi.info/noise -- this change was circulated to the NOISE_members listserv. BEC does not feel they have the bandwidth to support this at this time.

BEC update from Mark Read (Mary Beth Horton is on vacation):" National Engineers Month currently has 20 sponsors. Three new sponsors are Equa-Chlor from Longview ,WA, PacifiCorp, and Bioanalytical from McMinnville. We have approx. 16 other companies considering sponsorship. The economy has impacted many companies decision in participating this year. As of today we have the following teachers signed up to participate (see chart). The process just started and we are out of the gate fast compared to past years.

Educators
	Educators	Classrooms	Students




Total	224	467	11764

Additionally, I have been going out to companies to do a brown bag lunch where I spell out the process for the Engineer's involvement and to answer questions. This has created even more interest.
Also, we will be hold training classes on the OMSI campus to help the Engineers to deliver even stronger classroom presentations. These will be held in January. We have already started holding conference calls with the company event coordinators on how to prepare for NEM. Last, OMSI and the BEC will hold a kick-off evening to Celebrate National Engineers Month (NEM). This will be held February 11th. The OMSI exhibit that is coming in February is Da Vinci: Innovation. All of the registered Engineers will be invited to join us. We are anticipating 250-350 attendees"

(Jo) Brett McFarlane, Undergraduate Programs Director at OSU, continues to be eager to participate in collecting OST participation data from engineering students, possibly folding it into retention activities and extending it with focus groups every other year or so.

4:50 - 5:00

Review thismeeting's action items and set date for next meeting.

Default schedule for next meeting: Wednesday January 14
Jo and Bruce are working on an all-OPAS workgroup face-to-face Tuesday February 4, 2009 probably starting 9-10 and lasting 4-6 hours; we are open to suggestions for the agenda. Currently, some workgroup worktime is planned.

Meeting Record for December 10, 2008 - in process

Summary: in process

Agenda - #19 - November 12, 2008

Meeting Objective	Update the group on activity
3:30 - 3:35	Welcome new member Dianna Bancke, TechStart Education Foundation Program Manager. TechStart was formerly the Software Association of Oregon Foundation, and puts on SuperQuest.
3:35 - 3:50	OPAS, ETIC Updates ETIC Proposal update (November 11 & October 28)
3:50 - 4:20	Engineering Champion Pilot Program Proposal Update (Ben, Don) Draft proposal (v11, October 17) - doc - pdf Pilot Fund Raising Status Executive-level one-pagers -- V1 -- Shows context -- why we need to motivate students -- doc - pdf V2.1 (updated from V2 11/07/08) -- Educator/activist aimed, assuming reader already wants to motivate students -- doc - pdf V3 --Most effective? -- doc - pdf Discussion on next steps after the Pilot Program is launched supporting getting the full program in place: Media campaign for the Pilot Fact finding on the financial benefits of a having such a program at a school other?
4:40 - 4:50	Round table update - other activity of interest -- NOISE -- OSU Free-Choice Learning (Lynn Dierking in Corvallis, Nancee Hunter in Newport) has been expressing some interest in moving forward with NOISE; Lynn has been collecting various pieces Jo has been funneling to her. May put a student worker on it; may pursue NSF or other funds. OMSI has taken down the NOISE home page -- Jo has an inquiry in about this. BEC update on NEM
4:50 - 5:00	Review meeting's action items and set date for next meeting. Default schedule for next meeting: Wednesday December 10 Jo and Bruce are working on an all-OPAS workgroup face-to-face, which would supercede the Motivate Face-to-Face. Likely date is early February; we are open to suggestions for the agenda. Currently, some workgroup worktime is planned.

Meeting Record for November 12, 2008

Summary: Six members of the Motivate Workgroup attended the November 12 meeting. Ben gave an update on the ETIC proposal status and the OPAS Steering Committee meeting:

We are now talking about decreases in funding; the Governor’s budget process is based on the November 18 revenue forecast. The budget is published December 1. The current plan is for cuts across the with perhaps an appendix with some upsides prioritized in case money appears. Education is one of the governor’s priorities. This is a significant cut, but it’s not like the bottom’s falling out. Bruce wants to postpone decisions until after December 2; what/if to do could be a topic of discussion at the OPAS All-Workgroup Meeting on February 4. One of very interesting item that we will probably discuss – WICHE’s projection of the demographics of Oregon high school graduates could impact our priorities for program foci; a graph is posted at http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/Resources/NonOPAS_Working_Papers/WICHE_HS_grads_1991-2022.pdf.

The main topic of the OPAS Steering meeting was the pilot proposal and our request for official endorsement, which was approved. The discussion generated some very good questions and feedback. Eda uses the “Logic Model” from the Kellogg Foundation for grant proposals/evaluations – and offered other valuable critiques which Ben is incorporating in to the proposal.

Additional Pilot Program critique and status:

Ryan: we ought to assess which best practices are being used by the program. Ben wants to revisit this with a group discussion and incorporation into the program.
Lemelson and Intel both favorable after hearing presentations. Ben and Don also talked to PGE, Vernier and others. If more than $50 K results we should target a rural school – Hermiston, Grants Pass, and Silverton are all interested. We should have answers early in December.
Endi is working on polishing the one-pager and is happy to help with press releases, pending the approval of Di Saunders, OUS Director of Communications.
Supplementing state funding for the actual program, as opposed to the pilot, is one of the next steps.
We need some avenue for disseminating success stories – a dedicated website, the ETIC or getreal websites. Eventually we will need a website to support champion/coaches with best practices, available training and other resources.

Joyce notes that Saturday Academy class enrollment is particularly strong this fall, and the Apprenticeships in Science and Engineering is expected to become more active and visible.

Next Meeting: Jo will poll for a probable date of December 15, to accommodate some Steering Meeting scheduling issues.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, December 9, 2008

Agenda - #18 - October 8, 2008

Meeting Objective	Update the group on activity
3:30 - 3:50	OPAS & ETIC Updates ETIC Proposal (Bruce) ETIC next biennium planning page - http://www.oregonetic.org/nb.htm
3:50 - 4:20	Engineering Champion Pilot Program Proposal Update (Ben, Don) Draft proposal (v10) - doc - pdf Status spreadsheet - xls
4:20 - 4:40	Follow up from Last Meeting Ben and Endi met with Joe Holliday (OUS Chancellor's Office, Student Success Programs) and Rob Findtner (WOU Admissions) on September 18 raw notes - doc - pdf Engineering Student Survey data from 2006 (Jo) Survey - pdf Previous summary - pdf Crosstab report - pdf Additional suggestions for analysis? OST data collection from PSU and OSU (Jo) What should be on this menu? Succeed & Prepare's Community Conversation Conversation Workshop August 19: Resulting minigrant applications -- 6 applications representing 9 teachers one of whom is Domes (Jo) 1 recruiting event 3 FTC teams 2 LEGO equipment purchases for integration into classroom and/or OST programs Techstart is funding all of them; total will probably be around $5K Jo has obtained a promise of in-kind donations from BestBuy, and possible additional converasations around longer-term funding Best Practices & Metrics (Ben) -- helping motivate students to choose and be successful in pursuing an engineering, computer science, or applied science degree. Student contact hours with teachers/mentors Team experience Adult mentoring Hands-on Engineering Enrichment model -- improves sutdent appreciation for classroom learning
4:40 - 4:50	Round table update - other activity of interest -- BEC Announcements - Mary Beth EOU -- Ben met with Marilyn Levine, Dean of College of Arts & Sciences, EOU) September 18 Other?
4:50 - 5:00	Review meeting's action items and set date for next meeting. Default schedule for next meeting: Wednesday November 12 Should we start planning a Face-to-Face for January?

Meeting Record for October 8, 2008 - in process

Summary: Eight members of the Motivate Workgroup attended the October 8 meeting; Bruce Schafer also attended to update the group on the status of the ETIC POP.

After discussions with the Governor’s Office, ETIC decided all campuses should have the opportunity to align their proposals with the foci on recruitment, retention, and clean technology. Re-aligned proposals were presented to ETIC on September 29th. Within ETIC, OPAS is the focus of recruitment, and the new ETIC Retention Task Force will have a pool of $250K plus some direct allocations to campuses. OPAS funds within the ETIC Base Budget (Essential Budget Level or EBL) are $1.3M. There is a very small chance additional increments of $5M or $10M may be granted to ETIC, of which OPAS’ share would be $400K or $800K. All of this planning took place before the updated revenue forecasts could account for the stock market/real estate downturn. In the planning process, reductions in the OPAS proposal have been made proportionally across all segments; there is an opportunity to strategically focus on certain segments or aspects of the proposal and submit those changes for ETIC’s approval.

Additional topics:

Ben and Endi met with Joe Holliday, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Success, and Rob Findtner from WOU Admissions, exploring data mining for longitudinal correlations between OST activity and college activity.

OUS engineering enrollment is not limited by capacity.
OST data does not appear to be readily available.
Most admissions data is transcription-based at OUS institutions; private college may be able to offer different insights.
Endi recommends talking with OUS Institutional Research.

Ben and Don briefly presented the draft of the White Paper on the Engineering Coach/Champion Pilot program he is working on with the Lemelson Foundation; an additional partner to bring $10K to the table would be most persuasive. Ben and Bruce will work on some financial forecasting for the proposal.

Several teachers are taking this idea and running with it already, but these are the low-hanging fruit. About 10 teachers at SuperQuest (WOU) took applications and got funding promises for next year. There are issues with the budget timing that will be taken into account in future.
Endi, Ryan, and Don praised Ben’s work on the paper.
Ryan suggested a stronger emphasis, in the results section, on metrics, demographics, qualities of experience, and using the pilot to help determine the appropriate metrics to measure Engineering Coach/Champion programs, and how those data are collected.
An endorsement page is planned.

Mary Beth shared BEC news:

National Engineers’ Month is ramping up, with a target of 50 participating companies, a significant increase from last year’s 28.
Mark Read in now the full-time Business Development Coordinator, bringing experience and connections to the job and is off to a great start.
BEC is strengthening its relationship with OMSI, partnering on a number of levels. A celebration event is planned in mid-February, in conjunction with the opening of the Da Vinci exhibit. They hope to schedule the Governor and Susan Castillo for the event.

Ryan: SMILE is just starting their collaboration with the senior Mechanical Engineering students’ capstone project in conjunction with the SMILE Middle School Engineering Challenge. One of the students is a former SMILE student. The project is a water-powered car running on 1liter of water at 1 meter on a 2 kilogram vehicle.
Endi: The Oregon College Access Network is having a workshop at Lane Community College and is looking for more K-12 attendees. This was announced recently in “In the OPASsphere”, and Jo will forward the information to Jeanne Yerkovich.

The next meeting is Wednesday, November 12. We will begin planning for a face-to-face meeting in January, and discuss whether a December meeting is necessary. Jo will poll for January dates.

Agenda - #17 - September 10, 2008

Meeting Objective	Update the group on activity; identify action items to support ETIC proposal repackaging
NEW phone number	1.877.807.5706 participant id 214547 - back on ATT - don't call in early!
3:30 - 3:35	Roll Call & Finalize Agenda PSU people may need to leave early for new President's reception
3:35 - 3:55	Update on the ETIC Proposal: Governor's office talks have resulted in a plan to re-package the ETIC proposal focusing on the areas of recruitment (possibly synonymous or overlapping with pre-college), retention, and clean tech. May involve regrouping elements from non-OPAS parts of the proposal with OPAS parts. Any needed re-do by Motivate? Can we translate the impact of Motivate's segments into the number of students matriculating in engineering & applied science programs? Student interns: Teacher interns: Engineering Champion Pilot Program: Late-breaking news: Jo attempts a rollup of our ideas to date - doc - pdf
3:55 - 4:20	Engineering Champion Pilot Program (Ben, Don) Meeting with Hillsboro School District STEM Coordinator Ellen Lyon Pilot Funding
4:20 - 4:30	OPAS Activity Update (Jo) Project Lead the Way presentation August 5 at ODE/COSA sponsored conference for administrator and teacher-leader teams may have sparked an attitudinal change towards PLTW within ODE Successful workshop "A Community Conversation: Diversity in the CS Classroom" August 19 should lead to minigrants from Techstart Education foundation for some if not most of participating teachers and has garnered interest of BestBuy; may have significant new donor on the playing field; Jo is working it. Succeed and Prepare members will serve on the review committee. Pathways activity may pick up again, focusing on CS/IT, with more support from CCWD
4:30 - 4:50	Round table update - other activity of interest?
4:50 - 5:00	Review meeting's action items and set date for next meeting. ETIC is working on repackaging its proposal, review by ETIC on Sept. 29, due to Governor's Office Oct 3 Default schedule for next meeting: Wednesday October 8

Meeting Record for September 10, 2008 - in process

Summary: in process

Agenda #16 - August 20, 2008

Meeting Objective	Update the group on activity
3:30 - 3:40	Roll Call & Finalize Agenda
3:40 - 3:50	OPAS Update People changes Eileen has stepped back; remains on ETIC as OPAS champion Kathy Miller has also taken on an expanded role at work; remains on ETIC, but has resigned from Succeed Dick Knight is now interim Dean of Engineering at PSU, remains on the Prepare Workgroup but will be stepping down from the Steering Committee. Walt Mayberry is now chair of Prepare and is negotiating with ETIC CS Task Force for an interim subcommittee to more thoroughly address the in-class CS portion of the ETIC Bright Future proposal. There has been some discussion of Scheme and CMU's cs4hs. Kristin Nieman, Outreach Person at PSU MCECS is interested in joining us. Activities Prepare/Steering: ODE requested us to coordinate a presentation for the ODE/COSA Superintendent Summer Institute Conference. "Project Lead the Way: Practicing Literacy, Numeracy, and Essential Skills" came off very well. Attendance was pretty slim at 10 total for 2 sessions, but they were administrators and they paid pretty close attention. Succeed/ Prepare/ ETIC CSTF/ Techstart workshop "A Community Conversation: Diversity in the CS Classroom" at North Salem HS yesterday - gathered 9 teachers. Several are beginning to attack the problem through OST programs.
4:15 - 4:50	Status of Pilot Program & Next steps Report on SuperQuest recruiting and feedback (Don) Other activity?
	ETIC Proposal - Next Steps (Jo/ Bruce)
	Round table update - other activity of interest?
4:50 - 5:00	Review meeting's action items and set date for next meeting. Next Steering Meeting is September 5 Default schedule: September 10 We will be going back to ATT for teleconference services Jo will be out of the office August 21 - 28

Meeting Record for August 20, 2008 - in process

Summary: The Motivate Workgroup met on August 20. A wide-ranging discussion including Bruce Schafer reaffirmed that the eventual goal of the Engineering Coach Model is more than a team participating in a league or externally organized competition, although that team may be the most immediately implementable piece of the model. Criteria for assessing student quality of experience and program goals and supports, discussed during June’s worksession, were revisited. Ultimately, we wish to not only affirm engineering enthusiasts in their choice, but to encourage students who might otherwise not consider engineering to become motivated to pursue these experiences and disciplines. Bruce continues to emphasize that in order to have a handle on the administration and evaluation of programs (e.g., FIRST Tech Challenge) a limited number of models and organizations is much to be desired.

Several teachers recruited at SuperQuest were interested, and Don and Terrel are seeing some applications come through. Don Domes remains confident that he will be able to secure funding to support these pilot efforts.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, September 5, 2008

Agenda - #15 - July 16, 2008

Meeting Objective	Define the key components of an Engineering Challenge Pilot proposal
3:30 - 3:40	Roll Call & Finalize Agenda
3:40 - 3:50	OPAS News & Activity updates (Jo) Steering Occupational Outlook Data (Stephanie) - pdf McNary PLTW Site Visit - pdf ODE RFP - Superintendent's Summer Institute Aug 4-6 session: "PLTW: Practicing Literacy, Numeracy, and Essential Skills" Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth (CTY) -- collaborate to put on 1-day family robotics event, breakout sessions? Math in CTE STEM Equity Pipeline --train the trainer; not a large source of funds, but access to a group of practitioners -- possible response in 2009? ETIC Student Marketing - Getreal 3.0 with engineering content Feb 2009 Prepare/ Succeed/ ETIC CSTF/ Techstart -- summer meeting of teachers to help implement best practices; Don Kirkwood exemplar; minigrants; as part of brainstorming, help enumerate barriers and/or necessary AND sufficient factors for founding new CS classes/programs. Hope to schedule mid-August; we'll know more after the Succeed meeting on Friday 7/18. Article of interest: How to attract Young People to Engineering: ' Make a Difference Message' is key
3:50 - 4:15	Review Open Action Items from the last meeting: Ryan: Key differences between a club and a team - draft doc Metrics - ' Qualities of Experience' - pdf Pencil-out of costs to Jo Terrel/Don/Ben/Ryan (may need to work this during the meeting) Work up some concrete pilot program numbers with Don, Ben, Ryan. How much would we need to raise? Pilot scoped as 3 year program; District pays 50, 50, 75 and then 100% of stipends. Initial startup budget: teacher’s workshop, release time, travel time, subs, materials and startup (much of it not consumables); District picks up consumables budget. Ideally, teaching materials in all the engineering modalities. What about schools that are equipment-rich? Draft job descriptions Sherwood coordinator- pdf Hillsboro coordinator - pdf Hillsboro assistant - pdf Recruit and train pilot at Superquest with Don’s help, even if all we can communicate is the model. Ben & Don: talk to Chris Brooks of SuperQuest, make sure that he has bought in to this model.
4:15 - 4:50	Status of Pilot Program & Next steps Any further thoughts on Pilot since last meeting? Meeting summary - emailed 7/3 Status of 2 hour workshop during SuperQuest training How to select the Pilot Schools ( one idea - Have teachers submit proposal for Pilot Program Selection) Pilot Funding
4:50 - 5:00	Review meeting's action items and set date for next meeting. Next Steering Meeting is July 22 Default schedule: August 13

Meeting Record for July 16, 2008 - In Process

Summary in Process

Agenda - #14 - June 5, 2008

Meeting Objective	Define the key components of an Engineering Challenge Pilot proposal
4:00 - 4:05	Meet and greet
4:05 - 4:55	Key goals/learnings of the Pilot proposal Does an Engineering Challenge program, based key components of after school athletic programs, work? Will school districts pick up the full cost after seed funding runs out? Will head engineering coaches be sufficiently motivated to become champions for Engineering Programs at local schools? Is there a sufficient pool of interested and qualified candidates to become engineering coaches? Program attracts sufficient student interest Does the program provide a follow-on to FLL teams? Students are able to commit the time needed to fully participate in an engineering challenge Do participating students receive more scholarship dollars? Can the pilot program be scaled to a full seed program? Are there major differences in how the program is run for different Urban/Rural, Large/Small, Public/Private schools? What is the cost of the full seed program? What is a good cost split model between seed funds and school district funds? What is the time commitment for coaches/students/parents/administration? When is the best time to run challenges? Fall/Winter/Spring/Summer? How long should a "challenge season" last? How should the ETIC seed program be administered? Existing organization e.g. Tech Start Foundation, or OPAS? New Administrative How much coach training is required? Will outside school time program motivate non-school based teams? (This happens with athletics, e.g. swim teams, soccer) How should the challenges be administered, by current organizations, or should schools (or Universities) assume this responsibility? (What does the athletic model suggest?) Lean more about the available Engineering Challenges to determine if the seed program should focus on a limited set? FIRSTTech Challenge (FTC) OGPC (Oregon Game Project Challenge?) InvenTeams IEEE's Design Challenge JETS FIRST Robotic Challenge (FRC)
4:55-5:20	Selecting the Pilot Schools What are the key drivers of the selection process? Pick a cost target, then include up to that many schools? Base selection on key learnings (Urban/rural/small/large/private/public) Model if after what we want to use for the full seed program Mechanics of selection process We target specific schools Ask schools to submit proposals Ask a set of schools to submit proposals How should the costs be split between school & seed funding for Pilot? What the requirements a school must meet to qualify for pilot program How closely should we tie the pilot to schools with current PLTW programs?
5:20 - 5:50	Coaches Who sets the stipends? (Principal, mandated by the pilot program, guidelines, e.g. competitive with athletic stipends) Does anyone already get paid? What does athletics spend? What is the FFA, Band, Annual, Speech Team, etc. models and how much are those stipends? Who gets paid in athletics? How do assistant coaches work? What is an Athletic Director? How much time during school is assigned to their function? What is OSAA and what is the budget for it? http://www.osaa.org/osaainfo/ What do schools spend for the athletic program? Are additional costs covered by families, boosters, fundraising? How are engineering coaches selected? School administrations may not know what to look for. What are the qualifications? What training is needed? Who provides it? Does Pilot include Head coaches and assistant coaches at same school?
5:50 - 6:05	Dinner service
6:05 - 6:30	Students & Parents How are students recruited, motivated to participate? Gaining parent support Encouraging their student Financial support for transportation and out of town competition fees How do you organize a parent support group? Should pilot program contain an "Engineering Letter" for the student?
6:30 - 7:00	Challenges Head-to-head team competition (Robot wars) vs. engineering/design component (InvenTeam, JETS) vs. Scored Performance (FLL) Any changes needed to Support Challenge Program What are the competitions available? How much time does it take to prepare for a competition? How much does it cost to enter a competition? What is the state of those entering competitions now? How do the teams get to be part of the all school sports assemblies that are held several times a year to recognize students on sports teams?
7:00 - 7:30	Metrics to Collect Contact hours Testimonies (Coaches, Parents, Students, Principal ...) What is the actual costs per student contact hour, or is there a better cost metric? Will schools agreee to sustain the program? Where will the sustainable dollars come from? Impacts to other Out-of-School-Time programs? What existing OST programs give up time to add engineering competitions? University scholarship dollars - especially for students receiving a letter in engineering Will engineering colleges "scout" for students at the competitions?
7:30 - 7:55	Administration & Logistics Funding sources for Pilot (Challenge Programs, Foundations, Universities, School Districts themselves) When should we target the Pilot? Time line for completing Pilot proposal/getting funding/selecting schools/holding competitions How many years should the Pilot run? Should student scholarships be offered directly - or through the engineering challenges
7:55 - 8:00	Next Meeting - Wednesday, July 9, 3:30 - 5:00? Items for the Agenda?

Detailed Meeting Record for June 5, 2008

Summary: Eight members of the workgroup attending the June 5 worksession, hosting guests Jay Well of the OSU SMILE program; Terrel Smith of Sherwood High School; Jill Tucker from the OPAS Succeed Workgroup and the Lemelson Foundation. A wide-ranging discussion of the Engineering Team Challenge Pilot Program as an element of the OPAS “Bright Future” proposal to ETIC converged on these key points:

A “club” format is preferable to a “team” format:

Clubs are more inclusive and can provide a safe place with a group of like-minded kids who like school, math, science. Club activities may include fielding one or more teams to one or more kinds of competitions and exhibitions, and can provide a context outside of a competition season, follow-on activities, and fitting activities to current student interests and local resources.
Engineering-based service activities or programs such as “Design For the Other 90%” could be key to recruiting women, ethnic minorities and potential first-generation-to-college students.
OPAS wants to support activities that focus on its goals, that leverage existing programs and infrastructures. We want clubs of future engineers rather than future research scientists.
Core mission: increasing interest in ongoing engineering education.

Club “coaches”:

Are local champions/evangelists.
Need an assistant for increased flexibility, and support.
Are a focus point for sponsors and volunteers.
Need mentors and funding.
Extra pay for extra work is good.
Need connections to high quality curriculum and activities, ways to connect that back to classroom curriculum and standards, a common methodology around delivering content.

A central support organization is necessary:

Coaches should not have to invent infrastructure.
Summer workshop:

Share curriculum – plenty of good stuff out there.
Develop and share methodology for delivering content and practicing skills to best engage students – early adopters can help develop these.
(Ryan) Oregon State might be interested in housing the central support organization and running its workshop.

(Ben) Techstart could be a logical home of administration; STEM OST could be a separate thread inside SuperQuest. Don and Terrel concur.
Early adopter champions (Don Domes, Terrel Smith) can each mentor another school.

Selection and evaluation:

At least one of the pilot schools must be rural.
We must look at evaluation from the beginning.
David Coronado of MESA and Ryan Collay of SMILE may have a key set of 5 metrics to suggest.

Costs:

Terrel: I think I could find at SuperQuest 6-8 schools that would be interested in trying this model, but at an estimated $20K apiece, that’s $200K. If that money is not a reality, it is hard to put the program out there.
2 teachers extra-duty contract:

Year 1: 50% school district match; OPAS may need to cover equipment
Year 2: 50% school district match
Year 3: 75% school district match
(3 year horizon is important, as teacher contracts are for 3 years).
Ryan will provide better explicated cost figures.

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions:

Terrel: It takes a champion in the school. Principals and superintendents are way too busy, we’ve tried it for years. Buy a day for teachers to come understand your dream, and then you launch them. I can host a 2 hour workshop for SuperQuest teachers on how to do this. Some might do it without the funding in place. Terrel, as the Union representative, has written this idea into the contract currently being negotiated with Sherwood, and recruited John Niebergall to act as the coach/advisor should the stipend survive the negotiation process.
Ben: the pilot portion of this program could be identifying that first group of champions.

One resource might be OMSI’s new OMSI Ambassador program, which is attempting to identify an OMSI champion at each school to serve as a communications conduit.

Next Meeting: Wednesday, July 9 4:00 – 5:00 (subsequently rescheduled to July 16, 3:30 – 5:00)

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, July 3, 2008

Agenda - #13 - May 2, 2007

Meeting Objective	Updates More factfinding & work on implementation plan Time to do a pilot?
3:30	Meet and greet
3:35 -	OPAS Update: ETIC/ OPAS Proposal, $4.5 M - latest revision April 7 - pdf ETIC/ OPAS grants: Quarterly progress reports; Ken will be monitoring and analyzing grants Prepare: concerned about logistics, impact of Project Lead The Way -- also need to leverage the science curriculum Dick Knight presented a parametric model of the pipeline: greatest leverage points to increase OUS Engineering grads Foundation money: pilots and/or alternative funding? FIRST Tech Challenge has announced a new robot platform; well-received but key questions remain about the challenges Eileen & I met with Techstart chair, Prepare chair, ETIC Computer Science Task Force Chair, to share Computer Science Education work to determine if overlap or synergy opportunities exist. Eileen met with Jay Bockelman, Oregon Game Programming Challenge for factfinding
	Pilot the Engineering Challenge Program with foundation money? Some areas to plan -- need to brainstorm what's missing: Procuring Foundation Funding Lemelson has expressed an early interest, needs a detailed proposal RFP/Proposal model Relationship model ID School District/ Building for the pilot Define Challenge. FTC? CS? Determine stipend amounts Develop coach training material Additional coaching supports? Web?
	Round Table: related news/ successes/ opportunities
4:57 - 5:00	Next Meeting - Wednesday, June 11, 3:30 - 5:00? Time to have a face-to-face?

Detailed Meeting Record for May 2, 2008 - in process

Summary: in process

Agenda - #12 - March 28, 2008

Meeting Objective	Update on ETIC proposal status; further action needed? 2008 Goal-setting
3:30	Meet and greet
3:35 - 3:45	Update on the ETIC Proposal - Jo/Bruce- Specific status of the two Motivate items: Internships & Engineering Challenges Further action needed?
3:45 - 4:00	Other updates: NOISE ? - email from Rick Kang National Engineers' Month? Did we ask about volunteer interests like we did last year? ORTOP? - volunteer survey due for distribution with classic mailing Discuss next steps for the volunteer survey Results of the first 15 responses Explore booklet survey (Prepare Workgroup project) Results of the first 18 responses
4:00 - 4:50	Goal Setting for 2008
4:50	Last Thoughts, Action Items and Next Steps Any additions or modifications to the review of the overall presentation of the Investment Model?
4:57 - 5:00	Next Meeting - Wednesday, April 9, 3:30 - 5:00? Time to reset default schedule?

Detailed Meeting Record for March 28, 2008 - in process

Summary: Six Motivate Workgroup members met on March 28, 2007. Bruce Schafer attended, updating the group on the current status of the OPAS proposal to ETIC:

The total ask of $4.5 M was prioritized into

Essential Budget Level (EBL) or Level 0 priority: $1.2 M
Level 1 Priority: $3.4 M
There are two additional Priority Levels in the overall ETIC budget plan.

The version presented to ETIC is being updated for contact hours.
Eileen and Bruce felt that ETIC strongly endorsed the OPAS program, in large part because much of it is based on programs that are already successful. We should continue to emphasize that we want to build on existing success around the state.
Bruce is fairly confident that we will get between $1.5 and $3.0 M, and perhaps the entire $4.5 M.
The group decided we should continue to develop the proposal as a business and implementation plan; alternative funding could be addressed with a more detailed plan.

The group discussed some implementation details around the “Engineering Challenge” portion of the proposal.

Teacher stipend models; the importance of stipends
How to approach school district and building administration to explore workability issues.
The importance of setting expectations –

Teams in some environments get fewer contact hours. Does this set them up for lower performance in competition/adjudication, which leads them to conclude technical disciplines are not for them?

Areas around which to organize ongoing factfinding:

Challenge organizations/models: InvenTeam, OGPC, FTC – do these challenges need to be beefed up?
Finding and training coaches
Recruiting School Districts and Stipends

The Internship portion of the proposal is pretty well understood and detailed.

Status on other projects and programs:

NEM 2008 broke all records, serving over 22,000 students with ~400 participating engineers, an increase of 30%, in large part due to IEEE and ODOT. 900 Classrooms, 21 counties, 370 participating educators. Mary Beth expects to finish the final numbers soon.

BEC will again include additional volunteer opportunities in their follow-up survey. Only opportunities with the ability to follow-up with volunteers will be included, to maintain the credibility of the BEC and NEM programs.

ORTOP FLL and FTC
Saturday Academy
NWSE Judging

Intel re-funded the Technoscience Supersite at its current maintenance level. No update requests came in from NOISE.
ETIC has a Computer Science Task Force whose interests and activities abut or overlap with Motivate Workgroup’s.
There is an ad hoc marketing group, primarily for ETIC but their passion is marketing to K12. Bruce is leaning towards formalizing the group as an OPAS Committee. (Jo notes that subsequently the group was formalized as an ETIC committee, both to spread the staff load and to support ETIC Chair Fred Ziari’s vision.)

Next Meeting: Friday, May 2, 3:30 – 5:00 at the Capital Center and via teleconference

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, May 1, 2008 and posted May 2, 2008

Agenda - #11 - February 14, 2008

Meeting Objective	Focus on turning the ETIC presentation into a solid proposal by March 7 in preparation for the ETIC allocation meeting
3:30	Meet and greet
3:35 - 3:45	Presentation of the OPAS Program for Change to ETIC slides as presented - pdf more slides were developed for background; contact Jo if you need to refer to them Bruce's summary questions
3:45 - 4:50	Refine the information and format, using the proposal template (doc)
4:50	Last Thoughts, Action Items and Next Steps Any additions or modifications to the review of the overall presentation of the Investment Model?
4:57 - 5:00	Next Meeting - Wednesday, March 12, 3:30 - 5:00? Time to reset default schedule

Meeting Record for February 14, 2008 - in progress

Summary: on the evening of February 14, Jo published this document as a basis for further action - Motivate_ETICProposal_Key_Points_021408.doc (pdf).

Agenda - #10 - January 30, 2008

Meeting Objective	Reconnect ideas, plans, and resources Substantial input and progress on OPAS Investment Model segments
8:00 - 8:15	Meet and greet
8:10 - 8:15	Phone attendees join - Joyce Cresswell, Ryan Collay
8:15 -9:00	OPAS Investment Model Review & Discussion (Bruce) OPAS envisions investment through highly directed proposals solicited from and tailored with strategic partners and educational entities fitting highly selective criteria (e.g., rural high schools looking to implement PLTW; 4H offices looking to implement robotics clubs and teams) Good to have distribution to ETIC members January 31- overview of the investment model Needed for ETIC meeting February 8 - at least a solid oral overview of the proposal, better <=5 slide overview of investment model proposal. Latest draft of investment model (rev J) Sub-plans (addressing segment/boxes on pg 3 in above document) Pre-engineering (prepared by Dick Knight, Prepare Workgroup) Computer Science (prepared by Dick Knight, Prepare Workgroup) OST team programs, grades 4-9 (prepared by Eda Davis-Lowe, Succeed Workgroup (link coming) See any gotchas, holes, tripwires? Focus on overall presentation of Investment Model Next two biennia? Reference: Possible template for sub-proposals
9:00 -10:00	Motivate's input - in the abstract, identify the number and focus of sub-plans: Focus on Segment/box Marketing Which strategic partners or model programs? Focus on Segment/box OST Team engineering, grades 9-12 Which strategic partners or model programs?
10:00 - 10:15	Break
10:15 - 11:45	Motivate's input - put some detail on abstracts, using the proposal template: Focus on Segment/box Marketing Which strategic partners would be solicited for proposals? For about how much money? What are critical requirements? Next two biennia? Focus on Segment/box OST Team engineering, grades 9-12 Which strategic partners? Money Amounts? Critical requirements? Next two biennia?
11:45 - 11:55	Last Thoughts, Action Items and Next Steps Any additions or modifications to the review of the overall presentation of the Investment Model?
11:55 -12:00	Next Meeting - Wednesday, February 13, 3:30 - 5:00?

Detailed Meeting Record for January 30, 2008 - in process

Corrected Summary of January 30 Meeting - Corrections in italics.
The January 30, 2008 worksession meeting of the Motivate group was attended by 10 members and two guests, Bruce Schafer and Karen Lakin (Saturday Academy).The OPAS Investment Model and draft sub-plans were discussed in some detail. Ben Manny previously volunteered Motivate to take the lead for these segments:

the OST (out of school time) team-based engineering for grades 9-12,
the OST team-based computer science for grades 9-12, and to contribute to the Marketing segment. The group brainstormed some plans to address the segments in preparation for the February 8 ETIC meeting:

Marketing – pull in Businesses via NEM;
Engineering coach extra-duty stipends for teachers, based on the athletics model;
Internships for students & educators;
Linking volunteers to CRLEs and Capstone courses in mentoring relationships;
Enhancing FIRST Tech Challenge by increasing the number of teams and adding relevance components;
Enhancing NOISE by improvements and staffing to the TechnoScienceSupersite;
Funding a “tiny RFP” program to enable teachers needing funds for field trips and enrichment activities such as field trips, mini-conferences, travel funds for inter-school teacher visits to study best practices.

The group decided to combine some of the ideas, resulting in the following recommendations:

Tiny RFPs – are really the purview of the Prepare Workgroup; Jo will bring this idea to their attention.
Internships – to be developed by Joyce Cresswell and Mary Beth Horton, with additional input from Karen Lakin and Eileen Boerger; a very few slides to Bruce ASAP and written sub-plan by February 6, 2008.

For students:

$2200 per student
Mentor company matching at $1000 - $2000 per sudent
75% go into a STEM field
78% of kids interning in a technical field choose a technical major – Joyce will articulate definition of “technical field”
50 students annually, 320 contact hours per student
Cost per contact hour per student = $6.80 ~$7
Don Domes says there is pent-up demand among students.

For educators

150 – 180 students per educator per year; accumulates
$2,500 per educator to help offset startup costs
Companies match $2,500
10 teachers, 5.5 weeks of internship

OST team-based engineering & CS opportunities for students – to be developed by Ben Manny, Don Domes, David Coronado and Endi Hartigan; sub-plan draft to Bruce no later than Wednesday, February 6, 2008.

Program scalable, track record – not lock in brand, but be able to articulate example
- E.g. FIRST Tech Challenge – would benefit from relevance pieces
Stipends for extra-duty teachers –
ETIC match for $10K to match head football/basketball coach
- Head $6-8K
- Assistant $3-4K
- Under proposed matching, year 1 cost is $12K
  - ETIC match year 1 = $8K
  - ETIC match year 2 - $4K
Equipment scholarships - $3,000 per team
Targets:
- Stipends: 30 schools in the first year (2009-2010, $150K); similar numbers for second year with yet-to-be-detailed district matching to phase out ETIC funding.
- Estimate 20 students/ school
- 50 school-based teams for FIRST Tech Challenge =>$150
- Assume 50 non-school based teams
- Need admin/event costs for a 100-team FTC tournament under ORTOP
Contact hours per student per year estimate ~ 175 hours per student per year.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, January 31, 2008 ; corrections February 14, 2008 posted February 20, 2008

Agenda - #9 - November 14, 2007

Meeting Objective	Review interim activity; connect to resources
3:30 -	Welcome and intros
	Overview of current status of breakout groups Volunteer Engagement Business Engagement TechnoScienceSupersite status National Engineer's Month status NOISE
	Overview of related activity: Summary Status of OPAS Workgroups ETIC/OPAS RFP - $390 K awards - short powerpoint presentation OPAS Steering Committee Funding Legislative Concepts Summary Document, November 6 Ballot in the form of a computer survey Possible Model linking OPAS & ETIC CS Taskforce
	Action Items and Next Steps
- 5:00	Next Meeting - Wednesday, December 12?

Detailed Meeting Record for November 14, 2007 - in process

Summary: Five members of the Motivate workgroup attended the November 14 meeting. Bruce Schafer also attended. Mary Beth Horton and Susan Parsons (BEC) submitted updates via email prior to the meeting.

Subgroup reports:

Volunteer Engagement (Ben)

The volunteer survey is again under review; we hope to polish it and publish it so that Intel Retirees, perhaps ORTOP, and NEM volunteers may be surveyed.
Ben will work on connecting with IEEE and the Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce.

Business Engagement (Jo for Mary Beth Horton)

The BEC is actively working on NEM tools to support engineers as speakers in the classroom; Stephanie Lambert has taken the lead on this. While a good start has been made, this will be a multi-year effort. The process of developing the grant proposal for ETIC resulted in a vision that jazzes the BEC, and for which they intend to pursue full funding. OPAS has provided some useful connections, links, and feedback to this effort.
The BEC’s partnership with IEEE continues to develop; they will help in developing NEM tools.
Don Domes needs to follow up with the Hillsboro School District Superintendent about the teacher sabbatical pilot program he has discussed with the BEC; no grant requests should be necessary.

NOISE (Jo)

The TechnoScienceSupersite (TSS) email to the NOISE_members listserv has generated no response. Jo and Ben will collaborate to crosscheck the NOISE photoroster against the listserv and the TSS and send out targeted emails to encourage NOISE members to make sure their programs are on the TSS. The email should come from Jo.
Jo will contact Amanda Thomas at OMSI to followup on NOISE homepage issues; previous emails have not resulted in effective activity.

Bruce Schafer gave a brief history of computer science in Oregon and the ETIC CS Task Force before presenting a unifying vision for legislative action, OPAS and the task force. This is in the very early stages of discussion. The presentation was well-received on several counts:

Starts concretely with what is working – PLTW, ORTOP
Efficiency of applying resources to the work
Better packaged for selling to the legislature than the four separate concepts previously discussed, although many parts of those concepts are included in this vision

Caveats:

What is meant by CS needs really thorough clarification.
Lower-grade in-class programs are missing from the slides.
Skills (such as critical thinking) need to be made more explicit

This discussion will be continued with the other workgroups, and may include some tweaks in committee structure.

Next Meeting: Jo will poll for Wednesday, December 12.

Respectfully Submitted, Jo Oshiro, November 21, 2007

Agenda - #8 - October 10, 2007

Meeting Objective	Review interim activity; connect to resources
3:30 -	Welcome and intros
	Overview of current status of breakout groups Volunteer Engagement Business Engagement TechnoScienceSupersite status National Engineer's Month status NOISE - any updates? Of interest: Design Squad Visits Portland article
	Overview of related activity: Summary Status of OPAS Workgroups ETIC/OPAS RFP - $390 K 41 Notices of Interest; 26 proposals received; many at or near $100K Scored by rubric; rubric categories correspond to point categories in original RFP 8 reviewers; 3 current or former ETIC; 3 current or former OPAS active committee/workgroup members; 2 ethnic minority; 2 women; 3 higher ed; 4 industry; 1 research; 1 K-12; 1 HS; 1 non-profit Jo acting as staff support and research Review/allocation meeting October 12 to provide a slate of candidates for ratification at the October 26 ETIC meeting. Previous funding rounds have rarely provided 100% of the original ask in order to get maximum use out of allowed funds. OPAS Steering Committee Funding Legislative Concepts Brainstorm: is there a policy-level or funding-level support that Motivate wants to see implemented at the state level? What is it? Yesterday's steering meeting added the idea of a STEM Center to this list
	Action Items and Next Steps
- 5:00	Next Meeting - October 10?

Detailed Notes for October 10, 2007

Summary: Five members of the Motivate workgroup attended the October 10 meeting.

Ryan Collay announced that they had just had a phone call from Texas to let the team know that the Bernard Harris Foundation gave the OSU team the award for the best summer science camp in the program (http://www.theharrisfoundation.org/programs/summersciencecamp/index.htm). This was a collaborative effort by 4H, OSU/SMILE, the College of Engineering, the College of Arts and Sciences’ Dept. of Math and Science Education, the College of Education. When more information is available, Jo will distribute that to the wider OPAS community (done).

Subgroups’ reports:

Volunteers:
- We will re-focus on the survey; Ben and Jo will talk with OMSI’s evaluation department. We would like to use this survey on the retiree population.
- Ben is working on bringing Intel retirees into the fold through Intel, through BEC, and through work at Hilhi. The new web design class has a group of “client” Intel retirees who are specifying a class project – a website for the Intel retirees. The retirees are doing additional work with the class, and supporting the new CS teacher, Steve Nelson in his first year of teaching.
- Ben will connect ORTOP via Ron Dilbeck to IEEE.
Business:
- Dacia Ermatinger is no longer with the Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce School to Work program. Ben will try contacting Julie Wilson or Deanna Palm at the Chamber.
- The BEC expects to resolve staffing and email SPAM/legitimation issues with some help from Jo’s lists and send out an input form to the NOISE_members listserv by November 1.
- The BEC is working on adding more lesson and teaching support, such as behavioral expectations by age/grade for guest engineers. Jo will offer some of her collection of weblinks (done); Ryan will touch base with Stephanie Lambert of the BEC to see if he can easily share other resources.
  - We need a new metaphor for taking things apart in the garage, as many fewer kids today have that experience.
  - We need to highlight the social nature of problems, solutions, and the social nature of the work. Engineering always takes place within the context of a civilization.
NOISE:
- Something needs to be done, even if the activity is contrived.
- Lynn Dierking of OSU might be a possible champion, or have some insight. Ben will contact her.
Other:
- We have an IEEE article on Design Squad and other Intel Education activities; unfortunately ORTOP is not mentioned. Jo will distribute this to the wider OPAS community.
- Jo will get a Techstart Gala invite out to the wider OPAS community (done).
- Di Saunders, Director of Communications for OUS will be working on a marketing campaign to reach business and professional groups about ETIC’s and OPAS’ activities, priorities, data and results.
- The steering committee continues to solicit input on legislative priorities; discussion of STEM centers from the last Motivate workgroup meeting has been folded in to the current brainstorming document.
- Jo will poll for a possible meeting on November 14; preliminary indications are that rescheduling may be necessary.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, October 22, 2007

Agenda - #7 - September 12, 2007

Meeting Objective	Review interim activity; connect to resources
3:30 -	Welcome and intros
	Overview of current status of breakout groups Volunteer Engagement Business Engagement TechnoScienceSupersite status NOISE - any updates?
	Overview of related activity: Summary Status of OPAS Workgroups OPAS Steering Committee Funding Legislative Concepts Brainstorm: is there a policy-level or funding-level support that Motivate wants to see implemented at the state level? What is it? Yesterday's steering meeting added the idea of a STEM Center to this list
	Action Items and Next Steps
- 5:00	Next Meeting - October 10?

Detailed Meeting Record for September 12, 2007

Summary as Emailed and Posted October 5, 2007: Six workgroup members attended the meeting on September 12, 2007.

There has been a lull in subgroup activity; work is ongoing but not completed.

Jo reviewed recent activity of the OPAS workgroups, Steering Committee, and the status of the ETIC/OPAS Request for Proposals (released August 17; closing September 18; $390K over the 07-09 biennium). We will try to recruit a spectrum of reviewers from industry, OPAS, ETIC, and a range of educational sectors, and prioritize representation from each OPAS workgroup. This time, we are being more careful of conflict of interest rules and legal controls, and working to tune the review process for fairness, consensus, and documentability.

The workgroup heartily endorsed a marketing outreach effort to industry and others on behalf of ETIC and OPAS; understanding their roles is crucial for the legislature.

The possible configuration and mission of a STEM center was discussed while reviewing the brainstorming of possible legislative concepts for the 09-11 biennium. The national model STEM centers are few and young; in general they

conduct research on the learning process;
define and model best practices;
provide professional development;
build partnerships to support STEM education;
collaborate amongst informals & formals;
connect with business.

Regional models allow centers to focus on local programmatic delivery addressing local needs and resources and linking efforts to the local community in ways that meet the statewide mandate. Statewide assessment is crucial: are we reaching the students we need to reach?

Statewide models:

may not be appropriate for Oregon’s educational system, predicated on local control;
can deliver coordination and increased visibility for the many existing ongoing efforts;
can provide leadership to support regional/local ongoing efforts:

assuring the mission and mandate coming out of the legislature;
help create regional centers and networks;
provide superstructure models for regional centers;
provide channels for interaction with OSTA, etc and ESDs;

Legislative support requires more than Metro area or I5 Corridor;
“clearinghouse” efforts tend to work better if highly focused;
Being truly statewide takes a lot of energy and effort.

The next meeting will be Wednesday, October 10.

Agenda - #6 - August 8, 2007

Meeting Objective	Review interim activity; connect to resources
3:30 -	Welcome intros
	Overview of current status of breakout groups - Volunteers, Businesses, NOISE Volunteer Engagement Business Engagement TechnoScienceSupersite status NOISE - any updates?
	Do we need to better clarify 'Volunteer Engagement' and 'Business Engagement'? Originally 'Volunteers' were adult and retiree volunteers inside the classroom, and 'Business' focused on specific programs out- or inside the classroom - NEM, internships, job shadows, career fairs, science fairs)
	Overview of related activity: OPAS Steering Committee Funding Legislative Concepts Brainstorm: is there a policy-level or funding-level support that Motivate wants to see implemented at the state level? What is it?
	Do we need to focus better to complete some key projects this year?
	Action Items and Next Steps
- 5:00	Next Meeting - September 12?

Detailed Notes for August 8, 2007 - coming soon

Summary: Seven members of the workgroup attended the meeting on August 8, 2007. Relevant activities of members were reviewed, whether or not those activities had germinated within the workgroup.

Don Domes discussed necessary and sufficient prerequisites for leveraging the public schools to motivate students. These include an adequate number of well-prepared teachers, which we do not currently have. SuperQuest is a successful program addressing teacher preparation but not recruitment; he is talking with John Marsaglia from WOU and John Niebergall about developing a graduate level orientation to teaching class to help smooth the transition for professionals considering the PTE Teacher Certification pathway. Don also attended a Cooper Hewitt Museum Summer Design Workshop and is thinking of ways to propagate this through a larger sector of the education community than just the PTE Teachers. Don believes having a Summer Design Institute held on the West Coast next year would be well attended and effective. Work with Tom Thompson at ODE leads them to believe the number of Computer Science (CS) teachers in Oregon is fewer than previously thought and efforts to address this group may not require as much organizational overhead as previously thought. He also hopes to promote greater teacher-teacher interaction through the Hillsboro School District and has met with Tamra Busch-Johnsen of the BEC on the teacher sabbatical concept, which was warmly received.

Margie Lowe of the Education and Workforce Policy Department of the Governor’s Office met with both Eileen Boerger and Mary Beth Horton. Margie has recently joined the OPAS Steering Committee and has agreed to help facilitate some connections through both the Salem Chamber of Commerce and supporting outreach to rural areas, in part through her knowledge of state agencies. Margie offered to help Mary Beth line up BEC internships from government agencies.

Endi Hartigan noted that the State Board of Higher Education has a strategic planning initiative currently involved in outreach to underserved populations; she will see that Don Domes gets an invitation to their day-long event on October 11 at PSU.

Additional items:
• NOISE efforts may have stalled; Ben will follow up with Ray Vandiver and Marilyn Johnson of OMSI and hope to devote some time to this in October,
• Techno Science Supersite: a form has been developed to capture new activity information for posting on the site. Mary Beth will check on the status and advise. Redesign work on the TSS is currently delayed because of competing project priorities and the need to engage Morgan Anderson of Intel in those conversations.
• Discussion of possible legislative concepts was tabled; everyone is asked to think about what efforts would be benefited by policy statements and/or funding.
• This workgroup’s subcommittees will not be reorganized because they use different approaches to the same goal; we will keep communication lines open.

The next meeting will be September 12, 2007.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, August 29, 2007.

Agenda - #5 - July 11, 2007

Meeting Objective	Review interim activity; connect to resources
3:30 -	Welcome intros
	Overview of current status of breakout groups - Volunteers, Businesses, NOISE Overview of related activity: OPAS Steering Committee
	Action Items
- 5:00	Next Meeting - August 8? September 12?

Detailed Notes for July 11, 2007

Summary: Five members attended the most recent meeting of the Motivate Workgroup on July 11, 2007.

Status of Action Items from the Meeting of June 7 were reviewed; several of these are on hold pending vacations and other scheduling conflicts, and some are ongoing:

Polish and distribute the volunteers’ survey instrument to further clarify the necessary and sufficient infrastructure for volunteers in STEM activities, and what motivates volunteers (Ben, Jo, Ray)
Rework the Phase Model to get to common language with educators and informal providers (Ryan, Jo).
Develop presentation/activity frameworks to lower barriers to participation in National Engineers’ Month activities; some personnel at BEC have been brought into this project; OPAS may continue to provide programming and classroom expertise and resource awareness (Mary Beth, Eileen, Joyce, Ryan, Jo).
Work to close the loop on NOISE communications – Ryan attempted to “sign up” at the website and no message got through to Jo to put him on the listserv.
A review of the action items from the meeting of May 9 is needed.

A short report on legislative activity and the steering funding strategy discussion were given; see the Steering Committee Status summary at http://opas.ous.edu///Workgroups2007/index.html#SteeringStatus.

Jo will distribute the latest roll-up of the funding analysis exercise done by all of the workgroups. Again, the idea of some sort of clearinghouse or matchmaking function for NSF Broader Participation and Outreach requirements was discussed – should this be an OUS function? A NOISE function? A sponsored meeting? Assessment and measurement are key pieces of this, and tend not to be done well on the fly.

Eileen reports that Bruce has told her that Margie Lowe, Policy Advisor in the Education and Workforce Development group in the Governor’s Office (with Jim Sager and Lita Colligan) is interested in our work and may have a relatively flexible calendar now that the legislative session is over. We try to arrange a meeting to explore mutual possibilities.

The next meeting will be Wednesday, August 8.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, July 17, 2007.

Agenda - #4 - June 7, 2007

Meeting Objective	More extended discussion of group objectives and priorities; cement working relationships with a face-to-face meeting
10:00 -	Welcome new member John Ossowski; heard but never before seen member Ryan Collay, guest Karen Lakin from Saturday Academy - printable roster
- 11:00	Overview of current status of breakout groups - Volunteers, Businesses, NOISE Overview of related activity: OPAS Workgroups - Motivate, Prepare, Pathways - status summaries OPAS Steering Committee - funding - collected feedback ETIC Pre-College Campus Funding Solicitation - proposal list
11:00 - 12:30	Subgroup Breakout Sessions - review activity and goals for direction, additions and changes - what would take money? how much? where to find it? Volunteers (Ben, Karen, Endi)) Businesses (Eileen, Mary Beth, Joyce, John) NOISE (Jo, Ryan, Ray)
12:30 - 1:00	Lunch - thank you, Eileen
1:00 - 1:50	Breakout Session Reports Wrap-Up Action Items
1:50 - 2:00	Next Meeting - July 11? (Ben will be out of the country) August 8? September 12?

Detailed Notes for June 7, 2007

Summary: The most recent meeting of was the Motivate Workgroup was an extended work session hosted by Agilis Solutions on June 7, 2007.

Bruce Schafer joined us to report on legislative, ETIC, and steering committee activity. ETIC’s strategic goal is to double the 1999 number of OUS graduates in engineering and applied sciences: that goal is 40% met. Limiting factors are campus infrastructure, faculty, and motivated, prepared freshman. Research has seen an 80% increase, far from the ETIC goal of a 5x increase in research funding.

In the 2005-2006 biennium $751K was awarded in support of OPAS recommendations and goals. That number will increase in the next biennium, divided across 2 solicitations for proposals, one limited to OUS campuses.
Summaries of OPAS workgroup activity and the slate of campus proposals for ETIC pre-college programs were distributed.

While reporting on subgroups (Connecting with Volunteers, Connecting with Businesses, Connecting with NOISE) workgroup members had a wide ranging discussion:

models for volunteer participation – is SMART applicable?
Internships

Difficult from the business side, especially for small to medium companies, which most in Oregon are.
An internship is still an ideal model of a high-quality educational experience with great potential for recruitment of future engineers and scientists.

We agreed we should not force the connection of getting Oregon high school kids into OUS schools.
National Engineer’s Month

Recruitment piggybacked on to the wrap-up survey looks successful so far.
Eileen and Mary Beth will pick through what’s available to develop 3 grade-targeted frameworks for presentations for each engineering discipline. Jo will forward some resource links. We may have access to a classroom teacher this summer who can help with this effort.

An ideal project: work with NOISE to package curricular units with connections to regional informal providers, CRLE, and 3rd year high school science and math requirements. This would need staffing, perhaps a BEC educator intern, and funding for same.
Ben and Jo are ready to discuss the volunteer survey with OMSI’s evaluation department.
School districts, not coordinating agencies, have a better idea of the demographics of participants in school-to-work programs.

The next meeting is scheduled for July 11.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, 6/8/07

Agenda - #3 - Wednesday May 9

Meeting Objective	Share how the three subgroups are progressing on 2007 action plans Updates on other OPAS Activities
3:30 - 3:35	Welcome
3:35 - 4:05	Subgroup Reports and Next Steps Volunteers (Ben) Results from MESA trial use of volunteer survey ( Jo) Businesses (Eileen and Mary Beth) NOISE (Jo)
4:05 - 4:20	Steering Committee report (Jo) Results of Funding Worksheet Brainstorming (table pending 5/16 mtg)
4:20 - 4:30	Action Items from April 11 Ben - contact Mary Beth to determine if Worksystems, Inc is proposing a classroom volunteer infrastructure that we could use Ray - check to see if there is a problem with listserv responses being received Roger & Ray - provide Jo some reference material linking informal education to results in the formal sphere, including improved test scores Ben - publish revised Funding Worksheet based on feedback given at this meeting and follow-up email Jo - make arrangements for May 9 meeting and present options for June face-to-face meeting
4:30 - 4:40	June face-to-face meeting discussion Wednesday June 13 or another date? Morning or afternoon? Location: OMSI, Murray-Scholls, Capital Center?
4:40 - 4:58	New Items: Brainstorm how Motivate might incorporate Oregon's career-related project graduation requirement (CRLE) into action plans - Oregonian article.
4:55 - 5:00	Next Meeting - June face-to-face - Wednesday June 13?

Detailed Notes for May 9, 2007

Summary for May 9, 2007: The Volunteers subgroup reported that the trial run of the volunteer questionnaire may be ready to be taken to OMSI for a final polish. As of May 11, there were 8 responses. Ben is still doing fact-finding regarding many aspects of volunteering and connecting volunteer groups, such as the Intel retirees, to additional opportunities. Many of these efforts involve the BEC.

A lively discussion of the Career-Related Learning Experience graduation requirement was sparked by the Business subgroup report, and touched on the need for mentors, the safety risks in students seeking out mentors on their own, the need for non-parent adult interaction as much as for technical expertise, the opportunities presented by this requirement.

Mary Beth reports that several groups are in the process of or have tried to develop a central clearinghouse model for connecting businesses and volunteers to students and classrooms. Virtually all who take on the effort find it significantly more difficult than imagined and do not complete the program development. The current, highly successful flagship program, School-to-Work, run out of the Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce, placed 3,000 students this past academic year. The program is supported by fees paid by the Hillsboro schools.

The Governor’s office has issued a contract through the Northwest Regional Educational Service District (NWRESD) with Jim Francesconi; that effort is currently focused on developing a template for a program that can be customized to fit local needs and resources around the state. The organizational components include business (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Employment Department); education (e.g. a community college, ESD) and a connecting organization (e.g. BEC, Chamber, community college). The NW Workforce Alliance is developing this template in Washington and Clatsop counties, and is beginning to get traction. These efforts are very relationship-dependent, and how they can be leveraged depends on who owns the relationship.

A speed-dating metaphor was proposed as one mechanism for fostering connections; the workgroup liked the model but agreed a different name might be more appropriate. Another proposed metaphor was the merit badge. Pre-packaging with understood models reduces barriers for many volunteers and students.

Kids need an integral role in something they see as laudable. One model of this is sports.

The BEC is entering in to formal partnerships with IEEE and the Society for Information Management (SIM). The BEC is also looking for programmatic reviewers for the National Engineer’s Month Program.

The Intel Ambassadors program which formerly ran at Hilhi was proposed as a possible model for further involvement of the Intel Retirees. The program showed that repeated contact between a volunteer and a classroom results in much higher quality interactions if the adult can visit 4 or more times. Ben and Don will follow up.

The NOISE subgroup reports that the NOISE communications committee is currently without a chair; Ryan endorses Marilyn Johnson’s suggestion of John Falk and Lynn Dierking of OSU Free Choice Learning. Free Choice Learning does represent a wider sphere than just STEM education, however. Developing an organization with both a statewide reach and regional nodes of activity is extremely difficult, especially under Oregon’s geographic and demographic constraints.

We will have a face-to-face meeting in June at the Agilis Offices in South Beaverton; Jo will poll for a date June 5 or 7, 10:00 – 2:00 with a group lunch.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, May 11, 2007

Agenda - #2 - Wednesday April 11

Meeting Objective	Share how the three subgroups are progressing on 2007 action plans Updates on other OPAS Activities
3:30 - 3:35	Welcome
	Subgroup Reports and Next Steps Volunteers (Ben) Businesses (Eileen and Mary Beth) NOISE (Jo) NOISE leadership report (Ray or Ben)
5 minutes	Website Enhancements (Jo) Workgroup Index Page with Status Summaries Motivate Page Roster links at "Motivate" and in links table Archive of Previous Agendas Working Documents Master Resources List
	Steering Committee report (Jo)
	Funding Worksheet Exercise
	Shall we schedule another face-to-face meeting? June? Morning or afternoon? Location: OMSI, Murray-Scholls, Capital Center, PSU?
4:50 - 4:55	Wrap Up
4:55 - 5:00	Next Meeting - Wednesday May 9 3:30 - 5:00 - Phone & Capital Center

Detailed Notes for April 11, 2007

Subgroups summarized their current status:

Volunteers (Mission: Increase the presence of STEM-knowledgeable volunteers in the classroom by identifying and overcoming barriers to volunteers' participation.) has made progess on field research, and a volunteers survey that will be beta-tested at the MESA Pre-Engineering Conference on April 14.

Worksystems, Inc. may be part of a grant working on creating an infrastructure to connect volunteers to the classroom.

Businesses (Mission: Increase the connections between businesses and educators by targeted recruitment.) has been very successful partnering with BEC to recruit National Engineers' month participants for further volunteer activities; those contacts have been passed on to the appropriate agencies.
NOISE (Mission: Increase the resources and synergies among STEM education providers by collaborating with NOISE (Network of Informal STEM Educators)) self-organizational activity has been gaining momentum. www.omsi.edu/noise is now providing meeting notes and additional materials. A question about listserv responses getting through was raised; Ray will follow up with OMSI’s IT people, and also provide website and listserv activity data.

Eileen gave a recap of the ETIC (part of higher education) budgeting: ETIC asked for $20 million base budget – seems secure; an additional request for $34 million was downsized to $17 million by the governor. Ways and Means recommended $7 million; ETIC is trying to get that back to $17 million.

Roger and Ryan will provide some references linking informal education to results in the formal sphere, including improved test scores.

The Group began working on the Funding Worksheet; the discussion will continue via email; Ben is collating the results.

The Group agreed another longer face-to-face meeting in June would be valuable. The next meeting will be Wednesday May 9, 3:30 – 5:30 at the Capital Center.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro 4/13/07

Agenda for Volunteers Subgroup (Wednesday March 21)

Meeting Logistics	4:00 - 5:00 Via phone only. Please call 503.725.7201 and use conference ID 572017.
Meeting Objective	Follow up on the action items from the March 1st Motivate Workgroup Meeting and to prepare for the next meeting April 11:
Action Items	Ben Investigate surveying Intel volunteers both current and retired who log more than 100 hours/ year Tap into Intel Retirees as a source of potential classroom volunteers Endi Check with Di on PR coverage for general article on the impact of volunteers in the classroom, providing contact information for interested readers Agreed to help compile a survey to solicit desired information on volunteers All Submit survey info to Endi
Review	Draft Survey
	Any items to add to today's agenda?
	Discussion How to increase adult volunteer hours in the classroom Notes from our kick-off subgroup meeting
	Wrap Up

Agenda March 1, 2007 - Kickoff 8:30 - 1:00 at PSU

	Click to get this agenda as a pdf
8:00	Continental Breakfast and Networking
8:30	Welcome (Ben & Eileen) Goal for the Day: Develop the agenda, action items, and metrics for the year
8:35	Round table introductions (Ben) - roster What is your vision of success for this workgroup after 1 year? After 5 years?
9:00	Motivate Workgroup’s Goal and Strategy (Eileen) A Conceptual Framework: The Phase Model (Ben) – handout – “The Phase Model”
9:30	Present the Straw Proposal (Ben & Eileen) – handout – “The Straw Proposal”
10:00	Break
10:15	Discussion of the Straw Proposal What is missing? Ratify the major areas
11:15	Worksheet: How do we translate this into action? – handout “Worksheet” Identify a primary and secondary task for each of the major areas of the Straw Proposal Process – handout “Some possible Methods” Metrics Assignments
12:15	Box Lunch is served while we keep the discussion going
12:45	Wrap Up
1:00	End

Detailed Notes for March 1, 2007

Summary for March 1, 2007: Ben and Eileen hosted a half-day kickoff meeting for the Motivate Workgroup on March 1 at PSU, presenting the Phase Model conceptual framework for student motivation and a proposed workplan for the year. The workgroup ratified work in these three areas and broke into small groups and formulated action items and metrics:

Increasing volunteers in the classroom;
- Action Items include a Survey
Increasing business involvement outside of the classroom;
- Menu of choices for further involvement
- Piggyback on survey of NEM volunteers through BEC
Maintaining connections with NOISE (Network of Informal STEM Educators)
- Action Items included developing recommendations for an inventory of profiles for NOISE members for Ray to share with NOISE leadership.

The current roster has 13 members including Jo and 4 advisors/interested observers. Meetings are on the second Wednesday of the month, starting in April.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro 3/12/07

For questions or information regarding OPAS and its workgroups, please email Jo Oshiro or call (503) 725.2910.

last update to this page July 17, 2007 jco

March 1, 2007 - Kickoff	March 21, 2007 - Volunteers Subgroup
April 11, 2007 - #2	May 9, 2007 - #3
June 7, 2007 - #4	July 11, 2007 - #5
August 8, 2007 - #6	September 12, 2007 - #7
October 10, 2007 - #8	November 14, 2007 - #9
January 30, 2008 - #10	February 14, 2008 - #11
March 28, 2008 - #12	May 2, 2008 - #13
June 5, 2008 - #14	July 16, 2008 - #15
August 20, 2008 - #16	September 10, 2008 - #17
October 8, 2008 - #18	November 12, 2008 - #19
December 10, 2008 - #20	January 14, 2008 - #21
All-OPAS Workshop -- February 4, 2009	March 4, 2009 - #22
April 8, 2009 - #23	June 2, 2009 - #24