OPAS Prepare Workgroup

Summary - Nine workgroup members attended the June 4 meeting of the Prepare Workgroup. Updates on OPAS-related activity:

Dick reviewed the results from the last meeting, to verify the consensus: we have now looked in considerable depth at what we think are the needs on the pre-engineering side – rigor, expansion to multiple schools, modern pedagogy, etc. We have formed a positive opinion of PLTW and OIT’s foundation program in the state. We looked at other programs via Jo’s survey and Cary Sneider’s presentation and concluded the Boston Museum of Science’s Engineering the Future (EtF) program is good but for pre-professional engineering in-class programs, OPAS needs to throw our resources behind PLTW. We envision not being prescriptive that everyone has to participate, and having some kind of competitive process for funding, which should give preference to schools that make PLTW available to higher-end math and science students. There is a timing issue – getting the money in July 2009 means schools won’t start until September 2010. The per-teacher cost of the OIT Summer Training Institute (STI) is $6300.

The confluence of interests of the OPAS Succeed and Prepare Workgroups, the ETIC CS Task Force, and the Techstart Education Foundation were discussed. Meetings are ongoing, and the probable result will be an OPAS/ETIC sponsored one-day summer workshop that will discuss best practices in diversity programming, show how Don Kirkwood has implemented those practices in North Salem and his results over a three year period, and have teachers share and brainstorm how to port such practices to their schools; as a part of that discussion, we hope to elucidate the necessary and sufficient elements to pioneer a new CS class/program at a school.

The group discussion of the best leverage points in the Bright Future proposal resulted in a consensus that choosing some portion of the proposal on which to focus is better than spreading the money too thin. The best leverage points:

Chris reported that the Oregon Game Project Challenge was very successful in terms of numbers, feedback, process and event logistics; they are working on finding some industry underwriting. Dick suggests showcasing some of the student results analogous to art shows in the mall, or as ETIC success stories. The ETIC success stories cumulative through 05-07 funding are shown at http://www.oregonetic.org/07-09/Leg/ETICsuccess.pdf. Expect updates.

The group concluded that private foundation funding might be the most productive funding to pursue; much federal funding is looking for the novel idea, to see if it works.

Summary: Nine members of the workgroup, including occasional member Don Kirkwood, attended the May 6th meeting. Don teaches math and Computer Science at North Salem High School, and presented information on his recruiting programs at the Oregon Association for Career and Technical Educators in April. Presentation materials were provided for reference while Don recapped the program highlights:

Issues surrounding teacher professional development, CTE vs. standard licensure may need further discussion.

Dick presented an updated version of his parametric model “Where Will They [OUS engineering and CS grads] Come From?”, which may help identify the high leverage points for applying resources. Student statements of their probable major on PSAT, SAT and ACT tests may help provide some illumination of longitudinal trends.

The group reviewed a compilation of engineering curricular programs; some further discussion with Cary Sneider is warranted, but a major effort is not appropriate. Local CAD courses may be as good a starting place, as exemplified by Don Domes at Hilhi and Ron McGuire at Roseburg. The consensus is that we should just bite the bullet and commit to Project Lead The Way. Further exploration of how we might do that is needed.

Discussion of foundation funding possibilities was begun but not completed. Foundation funding may require more in-depth evaluation, which costs, than is warranted by a program with an extensive track record.

- held as part of a day and a half long worksession on PLTW with guest Judy D'Amico, PLTW Director for State and Corporate Relations, Western Region

Summary: Six members of the workgroup attended the December 4 meeting. Discussion centered around Project Lead the Way (PLTW) and practical details of helping Tim Brower, State Affiliate Director, as outlined in the last meeting. Probable activities center around:

Bruce presented his “Possible Investment Model” which attempts to package the highest scoring, most feasible concepts from previous brainstorming into something cohesive and comprehensible for selling to the legislature and other funding sources. The package includes pre-engineering and Computer Science; marketing/outreach; and Out of School Time component programs which are already in place Oregon and seem scalable. Overall reaction was positive; Bruce and staff will need to solicit additional help from the committees to flesh this out into a legislative package.

The December meeting has been cancelled; the next regularly scheduled meeting is January 22; we may have Judith D'Amico and Tim Brower with us (confirmations coming after December 20).

The slate of approved ETIC grant awards was reviewed. The quality of the field was greatly improved over the previous biennium’s; some discussion of alternative and additional funding for programs was discussed. Approved grants include three Project Lead The Way (PLTW) implementations in high schools around the state; an engineering component for the SMILE program,, an ESD-hosted, kit-based, graduate student mentor-driven elementary school science program in Hermiston; and a series of field trips to local area manufacturers for high school and community college students centered at PCC and Mt. Hood CC. All $390,000 for the biennium was assigned.

Data from ODE’s “2006-07 Oregon CTE at a Glance” was reviewed. CTE students continue to do significantly better than students as a whole in Oregon benchmark tests.

Dick was the keynote speaker at the October PLTW conference for high school counselors and administrators; he met Judith d’Amico, PLTW’s Director for State and Corporate Relations, responsible for the Western Region. Judith was very complimentary of Tim and his carefully balanced rollout of the program. She also provided insight into how new PLTW modules are developed. Dick and Jo will pursue the possibility of a more extended visit by Judith to Oregon to meet with additional interested parties such as Dave Vernier of Vernier Software and Technology.

SuperQuest: we need a vehicle for working with them on a breakout strategy. Their proposal to ETIC for identifying high school CS teachers in Oregon was not funded. What is needed?

The next meeting has been rescheduled to Tuesday December 4, so as to follow the Steering Committee meeting.

Summary: Six members of the Prepare Workgroup attended the September 18 meeting.

Jo gave an update on the OPAS RFP – up to 40 proposals are expected in to the Director of Procurements today. We are being especially careful to learn and comply with all applicable legal requirements in issuing and processing RFPs.

The Steering Committee is still soliciting brainstorming input on possible legislative concepts to develop for the next biennium; Jo will collate any feedback received.

PLTW: The discussion of ways to further support PLTW continued. The PLTW Capstone course is being offered in Salem for the first time this year. Ellen notes that the course timing make the Capstone project perfect for ISEF-circuit science fairs. Maintaining a list of engineering content mentors for teachers, and perhaps even mentors or expert consultants (via email) for students could be a very useful connection to academia and industry. There are similar projects at the Microsoft Innovation Center at PSU and IEEE.

SuperQuest: the next barrier to growth is a better method of targeted communication to teachers of computer-science and related courses. At the moment, Techstart would need additional resources to accomplish that. One of the artifacts of Oregon’s local control of education is that ODE has no visibility of who offers and who teaches elective courses.

The ISEPP Linus Pauling Memorial lectures may be a resource that could be better leveraged, through better publicity and educational supports such as preview material and active listening questions. Hillsboro plans on taking a busload of students and parents, and has begun target-marketing to TAG parents.

Ellen reports that state and federal Title II NOYCE funding in-service teachers-scholars wants to use a STEM center model housed at PSU – what works in science education and why? So far, there is unprecedented cooperation between Beaverton and Hillsboro and PSU.

The next meeting will be scheduled after the re-scheduled Steering Committee Worksession on Legislative Concepts.

Eight members of the committee, joined by Bruce Schafer, attended the August 21, 2007 workgroup meeting.

Bruce Schafer summarized steering committee activity, and the release of the ETIC/OPAS RFP on August 17, distributed via email on August 20 with subsequent mail followup. As part of the RFP, an OPAS Summary of Strategy document was released. For future use, the workgroup further refined the description of Prepare’s strategy as:

“OPAS Prepare seeks to increase the number of students who are academically prepared to succeed in engineering and applied science by identifying and supporting programs that have demonstrated success and are capable of being offered much more broadly by schools statewide. Solid academic preparation in science and math is essential. In addition, pre-engineering education can play an important role in the preparation of many students. To serve the goals of OPAS, Oregon needs a collection of such programs that address both engineering disciplines and applied science and math e.g., computer science and materials science.”

Recent data and articles of interest were discussed. Bruce and Dick Knight also met with Chris Stephenson, National Executive Director of the Computer Science Teachers’ Association (CSTA) who lives in Eugene, to explore potential synergies. Some highlights:

Further discussion of Prepare’s role as a PLTW champion was tabled pending Ellen Lyon’s meeting with Tim Brower.

Don Kirkwood’s draft summary of interviews with administrators regarding implementing CS in particular and new programs in general was distributed. Work will continue.

Respectfully posted, Jo Oshiro 09/0707 (previously emailed to workgroup members)

John Ossowski was able to join us for the first time, and discussed SuperQuest and the future of the TechStart Education Foundation (formerly the Software Association of Oregon Foundation – see the announcement at http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/Resources/Articles/TechStart_Launch_060107.pdf). SuperQuest is a for-teachers-by-teachers professional development program for technical curricula that aims at teachers, giving them resource-raising tools as well as teaching tools, rather than aiming at principals or other administrators. Historically and currently, 25-33% of attending teachers are newer, with the rest established teachers looking for new materials and methods. Because of the lack of Computer Science (CS) in Project Lead the Way (PLTW) the workgroup continues to look for relevant programs and models.

Since the last meeting, we learned that the proposed endorsement letters for Tim Brower’s and Bill Becker’s MSPP grant proposals are not appropriate; the RFP calls for letters of commitment from collaborative partners only. Both these proposals involve furthering PLTW in Oregon. OPAS may have a role here as part of statewide leadership championing PLTW; Tom Thompson will start a conversation with the appropriate people on what such a leadership role would look like and report back. One action we would like to see done is to see the Credit By Proficiency process applied to a PLTW course for math credit(s) both to know what we are talking about and to pilot that process for school districts.

Notes from Dick’s interviews with Marcia Fischer of PSU’s Maseeh College of Engineering and Computer Science and Jim Lundy of OSU’s College of Engineering were distributed. Retention and success data are sparse. PSU has recently joined a study out of the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE) an NSF-funded collaboration of 5 universities - http://applesurvey.org/institutions.html. - called APPLES (Academic Pathways of People Learning Engineering Survey).

Summary: Four workgroup members and three OPAS Staff attended the most recent meeting, including OPAS Succeed member and OUS Summer Volunteer Intern Don Kirkwood, who accepted a staff assignment to the Prepare Workgroup. Steve Day submitted email comments prior to the meeting. Given the light turnout, decisions made at the meeting will be sent out for email ratification by the entire workgroup.

The workgroup continued its discussion of Project Lead The Way as a viable part of the solution to meeting OPAS and ETIC goals:

Dick previously summarized the thinking of the workgroup for the Steering Committee’s Funding Analysis exercise; that summary was ratified by the workgroup. The rollup of all workgroups’ input was shared. Scalability remains a concern, as does the funding of pilot programs and the administrative need to fill 30 seats per class session.

The workgroup discussed leveraging the SuperQuest Teacher Training program to address the CS problem, looking for a CS analog to PLTW. The group will research this further, and try to identify other alternatives that may belong in the solution space. Walt will draft some questions to give structure to some targeted interviews conducted by Don Kirkwood and available staff and workgroup members. Bruce mentioned the possibility of merging the ETIC CS Task Force into OPAS.
By convention, the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 17, 3:30 – 5:00.

3:30 - 3:35	Welcome and Introductions
3:35 - 3:40	Quick Update on Open Action Items University assessment: matriculating students' preparation for success: initial discussions with PSU and OSU; will plan follow-up meetings. ODE Standards' White Paper (Steve Day): Group was supportive of recommendations to support SACPS on skill-and process-based standards, to advocate for middle school exposure to career alternatives, and pursuing either/both leveraging CTE activity and increasing engineering content of traditional academic course; will follow-up at a future meeting. Framing Student Success White Paper (Larry Flick): Group was supportive of approach. Revisit after PLTW. Career-Related Learning Experiences (CRLEs) Requirement: an opportunity? Review at a future meeting after connecting with the Motivate Workgroup.
	Project Lead the Way The Prepare Workgroup intends to identify initiatives that have significant impact on students' preparation for and selection of engineering and applied science careers are extensible to a significant fraction of Oregon schools/students Is PLTW a candidate for this focus? Special Guests: Tim Brower (OIT) and Ellen Lyon (Glencoe) Presentations - Tim's slides Q & A Discussion: Opportunities, issues, expansion potential Options Next Steps
4:55 - 5:00	Next Meeting Tuesday June19, 2007 Items for the Agenda?

Detailed Notes for May 15, 2007

Summary for May 15: The most recent meeting of the Prepare Workgroup was May 15, 2007 and hosted Tim Brower of OIT and Ellen Lyon of Glencoe High School, Hillsboro School District, to talk about Project Lead The Way (PLTW).

PLTW is a national curriculum administered by a non-profit organization. It is based in part on nationally developed standards – National Science Education Standards, Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA), Standards for the English Language Arts, National Content Standards for Engineering and Engineering Technology, Principles and Standards of School Mathematics. The coursework is activity, project, and problem-based with an emphasis on teamwork. There are end-of-course exams which are nationally normed. The curriculum has three foundation courses, Introduction to Engineering Design (9th grade), Principles of Engineering (10th grade) and Digital Electronics (11th grade), and four specialization courses, Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM), Civil Engineering and Architecture, Biotechnical Engineering, and Aerospace Technology. Of the specialization courses, only CIM is currently offered in Oregon. The 12th grade course is Engineering Design and Development, which incorporates a capstone project. Courses are designed to be 1 hour a day for 36 weeks.

The workgroup found two areas of concern with PLTW: they are not currently meeting goals for recruiting girls to the program, and the curriculum does not appear to include computer science, although there is a strong component of sophisticated application usage.

Workgroup members Dick Knight and Walt Mayberry are going to develop the information received yesterday into a proposal to the rest of the workgroup that could lead to the adoption of PLTW in 100 high schools in Oregon, and outline ways in which the workgroup could be instrumental in achieving that goal. Some methods discussed are letters of endorsement, helping develop a business plan and identify potential corporate and foundation partners, and providing input and feedback on documents such as a statement that Ellen Lyon volunteered to write on the benefits to high school principals and superintendents on what problems the adoption of PLTW will solve for them, over and above the curriculum being good for students.

The workgroup and staff will continue to pursue talking to universities about what constitutes academic preparedness for engineering programs and how well current students are meeting those criteria, and the optimal methods for closing any gaps. The workgroup also intends to resume discussions with Larry Flick about how OPAS can help work with him on injecting more rigor into CTE construction engineering classes.

The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 19, 2007 3:30 – 5:00.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, 5/16/07

Agenda- #3 - April 17, 2007

	Welcome and Introductions
	Approval of Meeting Notes
	Funding Analysis Worksheet for the Steering Committee
	Framing Student Success: Potential Synergy: Larry Flick's NSF work and OPAS Prepare - Preproposal How it connects to OPAS
	Pre-Engineering and Science Standard Reform - White Paper (latest rev April 17, 12:20 pm)
	Exemplars Project (continued): ID and engage exemplary teachers and programs in an educator's conference Project Lead The Way - see slides 11-15 of this presentation on articulated education for Mfg Engineering Classroom Material - TeachEngineering
	University Panel (Jo and Dick)
4:55 - 5:00	Next Meeting Tuesday May 15, 2007 3:30 - 5:00

Detailed Notes for April 17, 2007

Summary for April 17, 2007. Because detailed notes from the meeting of March 20 were not completed, Jo provided the status summary from that meeting.

All members were asked to review the funding analysis worksheet for the steering committee and forward comments to Jo, if possible for the next steering committee meeting April 24, although it is always useful to keep in mind how current projects and priorities might be structured to be fundable.

Larry Flick was unable to attend but provided, per request, NSF pre-proposal 6685574, “Teaching Science Through Construction Engineering Problems” and a summary of the benefits of partnering with OPAS. The work could become a design template for disseminating curriculum and teaching methodology suitable both for introducing applied content to academic-style courses and academic content to PTE courses. The group consensus is to ask Larry for his ideas on specific supportive actions.

Steve Day’s White Paper “Creating the Opportunity for K-12 Pre-Engineering in Conjunction with the Reform of K-12 Science Standards in Oregon” was also discussed in the absence of the author. Tom Thompson of ODE’s judgment is that the State Content and Assessment Panel for Science (SACPS) is supportive of moving from content-based standards to process-, inquiry- and skill-based standards. Assessment is likely to be the most difficult piece. OPAS could be valuable as a counter-weight to those vocal groups advocating content-based standards. Additional recommendations finding favor:

Advocate including pre-engineering content in the grades 6-12 standards as a way of increasing the opportunity and support for teachers wishing to use it in their classrooms.
Advocate exposure to STEM careers/ activities in middle school, embedded into the curriculum, with follow-on in high school. Starting that exposure in high-school is almost too late.
Develop new curriculum to model

putting more academic content into CTE classes
more engineering and applied content into academic science and math classes.

Project Lead The Way (PLTW) was brought forward as a possible exemplar program. The group asked for further information, and Tim Brower of OIT and a high school or community college teacher will be asked to speak with the group at or before the next meeting.

The TeachEngineering website was discussed; although it looks well-done, the group is leery of such websites because there are so many and it is hard to know how usable the materials are, and if usable, how often they are accessed and implemented. Jo will inquire at OSU, where some TeachEngineering expertise exists.

Further exploration of what constitutes a well-prepared university freshman was discussed; the group would like to know

what constitutes “well-prepared”;
how close the majority of freshman are to meeting those criteria;
what programs are in place at each university to support those not meeting the criteria, and how well are they working;
what additional changes need to be made within the universities;
what additional changes need to come from outside the universities, and who must make them?

The group decided not to pursue a multi-university panel at this time, and staff will make inquiries, and perhaps set up some discussions with individual institutions, including both admissions and instruction personnel.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, 4/19/07

Agenda- #2 - March 20, 2007

	Translate discussion from the last meeting into goals for action during the year
	Review and update: Introductions Key questions: how to make an impact this year? Focus: increasing number of students who are prepared for technical careers Focal strategy: Increase the use of improved teaching methods, such as active learning and student inquiry Targets: Middle school and high school students Transition between high school and college
	Potential areas for focus and action Questions when considering following topics: Would this make a difference? Can we act on this? How do we need to organize to act? Next steps?
	Topic 1: Identify engineering related content that teachers can use to enhance learning in middle school through high school Q: How can we identify this material? Ex: Flick – Teaching Science and Math Through Engineering (NSF) Ex: Candidate texts and curricula from OPAS staff
	Topic 2: Do newly increased math and science requirements open a window of opportunity for influencing and supporting schools? Information on the New HS Graduation Requirements: Summary DRAFT Decision Paper Q: Can engineering related curricula make positive impact of science and math test scores? ODE PTE Summary - see pg 2-3 NCCTE Study - executive summary; see Master Resources List for more Lane County Joins NCCTE Study - math score improvement stats
	Topic 3: Identify role models for successful math/science/pre-engineering and technology curricula, programs, teaching methods, and teachers with proven success. Document and share. Q: How to identify? Q: How to share?
	Topic 4: Expand the availability of teacher development resources to support adoption of best practices and model programs Q: When will be have model programs and practices we can advocate Q: How can we best disseminate? Leverage existing programs? Collaborate with professional groups? Conferences and events (work in progress) Create new vehicle (work shop, social networking tools, …)
	Topic 5: Understand the level of success and issues at the high school to college and high school to community college interface for next stage success Q: Speakers from key institutions? Q: Data collection from institutions?
	Priorities and actions: where to go from here?
4:55 - 5:00	Next Meeting: Tuesday April 17 3:30 - 5:00

Detailed Notes for March 20, 2007

Summary for March 20, 2007: Co-chair Sean Gallagher has recently been appointed Superintendent of Lake County Schools, and may be somewhat less active in the short term.

The Workgroup endorsed

Focus: Increasing the number of students who are prepared for technical careers
Strategy: Increase the use of improved teaching methods, such as active learning and student inquiry
Targets:
- Middle and High School Students
- Transition between High School and College

and continued detailed discussions of how to make an impact this year. Highlights:

What are the differences between enhancing academic content in CTE courses with more math and science vs. adding engineering and applied content to traditional courses? Larry Flick will prepare a brief on ways his organization could pursue this more aggressively with OPAS support.
What do we need to do to leverage the opportunity represented by the new math and science high school requirements? Steve Day will prepare a short white paper, to be edited by Jo, for circulation before the next meeting, which he will not be able to attend.
How will we identify exemplar programs and teachers? How will we document them? How will we disseminate that information? Dick will contact Carla Faini of Microsoft to explore possibilities. Dick and Jo will work on a straw proposal for a conference of educators, whose call for papers would solicit exemplary programs; and review the steering committee's calendar of events for additional opportunities.
The workgroup agreed it would be valuable to meet with a panel of college and university people to discuss what makes a successful student. The panel definitely wants at least one of those reps to be the teacher of a small class, intro-level course. For OSU College of Engineering students, success correlates are Insight Resume, SAT scores, and GPA in that order, per the AeA Scholarship program. Insight Resume information was given to Steve Day, who had not seen it before. Dick and Jo will develop the panel concept.

Agenda - #1 - February 20, 2007

3:30 - 3:45	Roundtable Introduction of Workgroup Members
3:45 -	Review, discuss, clarify our focal strategy: "Increase the use of improved teaching methods such as active learning and student inquiry." Note that workshop participants felt this was an OPAS-amenable lever for increasing the number of high quality STEM education programs available to students.
	Consider potential areas for focus and action - initial suggestions: Identifying engineering related content that teachers can use to enhance learning in middle through high school Identifying as role models successful math/ science/ pre-engineering/ technology curricula, programs, teaching methods and perhaps teachers with proven success and documenting those Expand the availability of teacher development resources to support adoption of identified best practices and model programs Do the newly increased math and science requirements open a window of opportunity for influencing and supporting schools? Other?
	Next Steps to take in the areas of greatest interest: Propose and discuss
4:55 - 5:00	Next Meeting: Tuesday, March 20 3:30 - 5:00

Detailed Notes for February 22, 2007

Summary for February 22, 2007: The Prepare roster stands at 12 members with one advisor/interested observer. Prepare Workgroup Meetings are on the Third Tuesday of the month. Potential action items:

Identify best practices around teaching as related to the opportunity to address the new math and science requirements with content driven by math and applied science
- help define the pre-engineering or applied class that would satisfy the new math/sci requirement and "guarantee" a pop in scores
- help define what the applied math and science courses in HS would look like
- perhaps document these best practices through a case methodology
- perhaps create a set of short profiles of exemplars -- which OPAS-flavor programs could be slotted in to fill the new math/science requirements and are replicable and extensible?

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro 3/12/07

For questions or information regarding OPAS Initiative activity, please email Jo Oshiro or call (503) 725.2910.

last update to this page June 12,, 2007 jco

#1 - February 20, 2007 Agenda & Summary	#2 - March 20, 2007 Agenda & Summary
#3 - April 17, 2007 Agenda & Summary	#4 - May 15, 2007 Agenda & Summary
#5 - June 19, 2007 Agenda & Summary	#6 - July 17, 2007 Agenda & Summary
#7 - August 21, 2007 Agenda & Summary	#8 - September 18, 2007 Agenda & Summary
#9 - October 30, 2007 Agenda & Summary	#10 - December 4, 2007 Agenda & Summary
#11 - January 22, 2008 Agenda & Summary	#12 - February 27, 2008 Agenda & Summary
#13 - April 3, 2008 Agenda & Summary	#14 - May 6, 2008 Agenda & Summary
#15 - June 4, 2008 Agenda & Summary

Meeting Objective	Solidify some priorities, decisions and policy for in-class proposal implementation Identify further action and research
3:30 - 3:35	Welcome and Introductions
3:35 - 3:40	1 Activity Reports Congratulations Dick -- Interim Dean of Engineering at PSU as of July 1 Quick Reports: McNary grant site visit -- PLTW IED class AC Gilbert Discovery Village in Salem visit Southridge IB Higher Level Math classes -- JETS ASSESS
3:40 - 3:45	2 Review Consensus & Action Items from last Meeting Brand-name endorsement of PLTW -- still our conclusion? Funding models -- Jo does not understand these well, has some research pointers: "Informal" -- $5,000 - $50,000 RFP -- as per previous OPAS RFPs Allocations -- must be OUS internal?
3:45 - 4:10	3 Computer Science Topics Report on ETIC CSTF fact-gathering & possible collaboration with Succeed for teacher meeting in August -- emails and discussions with Knight, Brooks, Schafer, Oshiro, Davis-Lowe, Kirkwood -- May 19 version of the "Propagator" proposal for that meeting - pdf Some discussion at the May 27 Steering Meeting Succeed wants to increase class participation by underrepresented groups, using successful models ETIC CSTF wants to better understand necessary AND sufficient factors in starting NEW programs/classes Prepare wants to increase the number of schools offering rigorous CS classes/programs Included for reference: Kirkwood's OACTE slides - ppt - color pdf DRAFT for Discussion -ODE's "Guidelines, Scenarios and Resources for Offering Credit in Applied Academics - pdf - from Tom Thompson, distributed at the same session; how to use integrated Math, Applied Math, Construction Math, Business Math and CTE classes to meet the new graduation requirements. What approach do we recommend for CS? Clear policy statement analagous to "Implement PLTW" possible?
4:10 - 4:25	4 Discussion: What is the relative priority and need between CS & Pre-engineering?
4:25 - 4:40	5 If we receive funding, how do we recommend the programs Prepare proposed to ETIC be implemented and managed? reference - Latest Version, ETIC superproposal - updated April 7 - pdf
4:40 - 4:55	6 Foundation funding - brainstorming and possibilities - identify further research or action items?
4:55 - 5:00	7 Next Meeting Default Schedule Tuesday, July 8, 2008 (Steering June 20) Items for the Agenda?

Meeting Objective	Follow up on various OPAS-related activity Work on ETIC proposal implementation plan
NEW Phone	1.866.232.8377 id 3411# (enter twice) you will be asked for your name, used to announce you in & out of the conference
3:30 - 3:35	Welcome and Introductions
3:35 - 3:50	1 OACTE Report - Don Kirkwood (Oregon Association for Career & Technical Ed) Included for reference: slides - ppt - color pdf Included for reference: DRAFT for Discussion -ODE's "Guidelines, Scenarios and Resources for Offering Credit in Applied Academics - pdf - from Tom Thompson, distributed at the same session; how to use integrated Math, Applied Math, Construction Math, Business Math and CTE classes to meet the new graduation requirements.
3:50 - 4:05	2 Don Domes' notes on preparing teachers
4:05 - 4:15	3 "Where Will They Come From?" - Dick's parametric model, a conceptual framework for identifying leverage points for increasing the number of engineering, computer science & applied science majors - pdf
4:15 - 4:30	4 Survey of Candidate Pre-Engineering Programs - pdf
4:30 - 4:55	5 If we receive funding, how do we recommend the programs Prepare proposed to ETIC be managed? reference - Latest Version, ETIC superproposal - updated April 7 - pdf
4:55 - 5:00	6. Next Meeting Default Schedule Tuesday, June 10, 2008 (Steering May 27) Items for the Agenda: other items?

Meeting Objective	Guest Speaker Cary Sneider Follow up status of ETIC proposal
3:30 - 3:35	Welcome and Introductions
3:35 - 4:20	1 "Alternative Solutions for Engineering the Curriculum" (Cary Sneider) Video "Engineering the Future" - http://www.mos.org/etf/. click on "Video Overview." "What will it take to Establish Technology/Engineering Education for All Students?" The Technology Teacher, March 2008 - pdf Questions and Discussion
4:20 - 4:45	2. Status of ETIC Proposal after the ETIC Meeting March 14 and Steering Meeting March 17 Latest version, ETIC superproposal - updated April 2, 2008 - pdf PLTW subproposal - most recent version CS subproposal - most recent version Contact hours spreadsheet Do we see any holes or red flags in the Overview or subproposals? Implications -- if this funding comes through, what are the open issues? What questions need to be answered to develop "business plans" to implement these proposals? Next steps
4:45 - 4:55	3. Other updates (Jo) Motivate Workgroup concentrating on developing the "Team Engineering Challenges" program OACTE presentation slated based on work of the Prepare and Succeed Workgroups Marketing Group ETIC CS Task Force
4:55 - 5:00	4. Next Meeting Default Schedule Tuesday, April 15, 2008 (Steering April 7) Change default meeting time? May 20? (Assume Steering May 13-16) Items for the Agenda: If we receive funding, how do we recommend the program be managed? other items?

Meeting Objective	Follow up on the Steering Committee's proposal to ETIC and implications for the Prepare Workgroup
3:30 - 3:35	Welcome and Introductions
	1. Status of ETIC Proposal discussed at the Steering Meeting Feb 26 DRAFT Overview "Achieving a Bright Future in Engineering and Applied Sciences: Oregon's K-12 Opportunity Knight's draft, Manny & Oshiro edits(track changes still showing) - pdf Subproposals this draft introduces are High School Engineering Challenges, Manny (the "Engineering Coaches" model) Marketing SubPlan, Schafer et al. Student and Teacher Internships, Creswell & Horton Out of School Time grades 4 - 9, Davis-Lowe In-class Pre-Engineering, Knight & Brower In-class Computer Science, Knight & Brooks Summaries of Prepare Workgroup subproposals Pre-Engineering - doc - pdf Computer Science - doc - pdf Do we see any holes or red flags in the Overview or subproposals?
	2. Implications - if this funding comes through, what are the open issues?
	3. Next Steps
4:55 - 5:00	4.. Next Meeting Tuesday, March 24, 2008 (Steering ~March 17) Time to change default meeting time? Items for the Agenda?

Meeting Objective	1. Explore and ID options for PLTW articulation with CC and universities 2. Provide guidance and approval for proposals to include in the OPAS investment model.
3:30 - 3:35	Welcome and Introductions Judy D'Amico Tim Brower Steffen Moller John McKee
	1. PLTW - national website - OPAS Brief on PLTW Overview (if needed) by Judy D'Amico Q & A Supporting docs from earlier today ASEE STEM Program Rubric PLTW Transcripted University Credit PLTW Schools in OR as of 12/31/07 PLTW Grants in Oregon Evaluation report 2006-07 Expectations for the future in Oregon - Tim Costs
	2. Articulation options for PLTW Options High School elective High School CTE sequence High School science graduation requirement credit towards specific CC or "early college" program credit towards a specific university program (e.g., OIT Manufacturing Engineering Technology) Powerpoint on statewide articulation agreement credit towards a recognized national program (e.g., AP) Questions Is this inherently piecemeal in Oregon? What can be done on a unified basis? Facilitation of local processes possible? Role of universities? Clarification for counselors, students, parents? Alternate Recognitions - Tom
	3. Proposed OPAS Investment Model DRAFT rev I 1/08/08 ETIC Meeting is February 8. Prepare Workgroup Segments (Boxes) - Dick's drafts In-class grades 9-12 Engineering In-class grades 9-12 Computer Science
	4. Public feedback on the Oregon CTE plan - Dick submitted this as a private individual because of timeline constraints. He would like to know if he captured the group's thinking, and if anyone sees any red flags. Document
4:55 - 5:00	5. Next Meeting Tuesday, February 19, 2008 Time to change default meeting time? Items for the Agenda?

Meeting Objective	Pinpoint methods and leverage points for proactively helping PLTW and SuperQuest in Oregon.
3:30 - 3:35	Welcome and Introductions
	1. PLTW 1a) Update Dick offers our help to Tim Brower, PLTW - pdf Tim Brower's response to Dick's questions, Analysis of State Leader role table from the last meeting - pdf Invitation to plan a visit: Judith D'Amico, PLTW Director of State and Corporate Relations, Western Region - pdf Other key issues? 1b) Actions Review the table on pg 1 of the Brower document Can we use this to identify some action items to get started? 1c) College Credit See question 3 on pgs 3-4 of the Brower document Do we have a consensus on direction?
	2. Computer Science and SuperQuest We identified a possible action item - joint meeting with interested parties. Can we draft a skeleton agenda to test the interest of other groups?
	3. Women in Technology A possible joint meeting(s) with Motivate and Succeed Workgroups? Motivate's probable focus: volunteer recruitment and retention for OST and in-class activities and CRLEs PLTW, the new bioscience curriculum, and SuperQuest might provide some new elements to which Motivate can contribute. Succeed: underrepresented group recruitment and retention best practices Skeleton agenda(s)?
	4. Proposed OPAS Investment Model DRAFT (Bruce)
4:55 - 5:00	5. Next Meeting Tuesday, December 18 or January 22, 2008 Items for the Agenda?

Meeting Objective	Continue our discussion of specific programs that we would like to support and methods for doing so.
3:30 - 3:35	Welcome and Introductions Today's agenda on slides - ppt or pdf
	ETIC/OPAS RFP grants- $390 K - update Review panel slate approved by ETIC 10/27. 41 Notices of Interest; 26 proposals received; many at or near $100K; 1 DQ'd; overall a better field 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 This and previous funding rounds have rarely provided 100% of the original ask in order to get maximum use out of allowed funds. Entire $390K allocated We are actively soliciting process critiques for future improvement; we are providing limited, general insight into why some proposals did not make the cut
	2. Review of OPAS Prepare Strategy: PLTW and SuperQuest focus Oregon CTE update
	3. Project Lead the Way update and questions Overview of PLTW HS and MS programs positive key findings, except gender mix Comments by Bob Dorn of PLTW High Schools That Work - Research Brief: Project Lead the Way Works: A New Type of Career and Technical Programs, September 2007 PLTW assessment and conclusions: p 67 and following PLTW Program Evaluation 2006-07 October PLTW workshop discussion topic: relationship of pre-engineering and early college credit Steering Committee Questions PLTW effectiveness in choosing engineering careers PLTW effectiveness with under-represented groups PLTW meets or exceeds most objectives: need to work on low-SES, African-American, and women; in general, doing better than college engineering programs is female participation centered on biomedical classes?
	4. PLTW State Leader role and OPAS Prepare Workgroup role email Tim Brower/ Dick Knight (aka PLTW1/2) What fits now? What might fit in a "STEM Center"? Matching PLTW teachers with industry assistance email Rob Tinnell/ Jo Oshiro
	5. SuperQuest Outlook and needs: OPAS role How to expand impact Meeting funding needs
-----	Other PLTW information distributed for this meeting, not for discussion Engineering Academy of S Texas PLTW program PLTW at Galt Union HS, Galt, California Summary of PLTW analysis Analysis of Student Achievement and Programs, 2007 (includes non-PLTW programs)
----	Other information for distribution but not discussion Brainstorming Possible Legislative Concepts Steering Committee Worksession October 23 Summary Document October 30 Other workgroup status summaries
-----	Other activity Don Kirkwood's teacher/administrative interviews: activity has slowed as we have tried to connect with PPS and Lake Oswego administrators; additional insight from talking to grant proposers has been forwarded to Don.
4:55 - 5:00	6. Next Meeting Tuesday November 20, 2007 (Thanksgiving week) Items for the Agenda?