Steering Committee Archive of Agendas - August 29, 2006 - present

[ return to Steering Webpage ]

August 29, 2006 - OPAS #10 Agenda	September 12, 2006 - OPAS #11 Agenda
* October 5, 2006 - Committee Chairs Meeting Notes *	October 25, 2006 - OPAS #12 Agenda
December 8, 2006 - Draft Workshop Report	December 15, 2006 - OPAS #13 Agenda
January 16, 2007 - OPAS #14 Agenda	February 13, 2007 - OPAS #15 Agenda
March 13, 2007 - OPAS #16 Agenda	April 24, 2007 - OPAS #17 Agenda
May 16, 2007 - OPAS #18 Agenda & Summary	June 12, 2007 - OPAS #19 Agenda & Summary
July 31, 2007 - OPAS #20 Agenda & Summary	August 16, 2007 - OPAS #21 Agenda & Summary
September 11, 2007 - OPAS #22 Agenda & Summary	October 23, 2007 - OPAS #23 Agenda & Summary
November 26, 2007 - OPAS #24 Agenda & Summary	December 17, 2007 - OPAS #25 Agenda & Summary
January 8, 2008 - OPAS #26 Agenda & Summary	January 23, 2008 - OPAS #27 Agenda & Summary
February 6, 2008 - OPAS #28 Agenda & Summary	February 12, 2008 - post-ETIC comments
February 18, 2008 - Proposal Task Force Agenda	February 26, 2008 - OPAS #29 Agenda & Summary
March 17, 2008 - OPAS #30 Agenda & Summary	April 7, 2008 - OPAS #31 Agenda & Summary
April 29, 2008 - OPAS #32 Agenda & Summary	May 27, 2008 - OPAS #33 Agenda & Summary
June 20, 2008 - OPAS #34 Agenda & Summary	July 22, 2008 - OPAS #35 Agenda & Summary
September 5, 2008 - OPAS #36 Agenda & Summary	October 28, 2008 -- Interim Update
November 11, 2008 - OPAS #37 Agenda & Summary	November 11, 2008 -- Interim Update
December 9, 2008 -- Interim Update	December 15, 2008 -- Cancelled
January 23, 2009 - OPAS #38 Agenda & Summary	March 10, 2009 -- OPAS #39 Agenda & Summary
April 29, 2009 - OPAS #40 Agenda & Summary	June 3, 2009 - OPAS #41 Agenda & Summary
July 17, 2009 - OPAS #42 Agenda & Summary	August 17, 2009 - OPAS #43 Agenda & Summary

After the ETIC Meeting February 8, 2008

Thanks to hard work of Dick Knight and many of you, we were well prepared for our "15 minutes of fame" at the ETIC meeting on Friday afternoon. Dick Knight did a great job of presenting our case backed up by Ben Manny, Eda Davis-Lowe, and Eileen Boerger. See http://www.oregonetic.org/09-11/OPASslides020808.pdf for the slides that Dick presented.

During Q&A we received more supportive comments than questions or suggestions. Along the way, several things became clear:
(1) The ETIC industry members and some key academic members really like our approach.
(2) What they like about it most is its ability to "deliver" more well-prepared college freshmen that are inclined to choose engineering, computer science, or material science as their major.
(3) They want to see systemic change that will outlast OPAS as a committee structure.
(4) They want to us to deliver a balance of quantity, quality and diversity.
(5) While they didn't see our proposed "price tag" of $4.5 million over two year as being too high, their ability to help us get this level of funding will be limited by two things: (a) how well we make our case going forward; and (b) the amount of new tax revenues that become available to the Oregon Legislature in 2009. (Clearly we can't affect the latter but we can certainly affect the former.)

Our next step is to produce a written plan that give the specifics of our proposal based on the template* that I've attached. We have until March 7th to turn in this plan. We can use the sub-proposals that we started developing in January as "running starts" towards completing this plan. The Investment Description should should include a description of how we will stage the growth of our programs in terms of geography, types of schools, target student audiences, etc. It will need to address each of the six areas identified on slide 5 of last Friday's slide set. In most cases our plan should not be brand-specific. In other words, instead of saying it will allocate $x thousand to program A, $y thousand to program B, and $z thousand to program C, it should say it will allocate $x+y+z thousand to program(s) with the following characteristics: (a)...(b)...(c)..., possibly citing programs A, B, or C as having some of those characteristics.

We'll need a draft ready by the end of February so we can spend the first week of March editing it so it's ready to submit on March 7th. Please contact me to let me to let me know what role you can play during February. In the meantime, Jo will be in touch regarding scheduling one or two Steering Committee meetings during February.

...Bruce

* We can change the last table to best describe how we want to be measured as long as it's clear that we a proposing something which can be objectively measured and will produce the results that ETIC is looking for.
Respectfully submitted, Bruce Schafer, February 12, 2008

 

Agenda #28, Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Meeting Record for February 6, 2008

Summary: Ten members of the committee attended the February 6 meeting; additional members reviewed materials prior to the meeting and submitted comments via email.  The priority of this meeting was to assist Dick Knight in polishing presentation materials for the ETIC meeting on Friday, February 8, 2008.

Dick and Bruce reported on their visits to discuss the presentation and possible modifications with ETIC members and OUS deans.  Overall, the reaction was positive.  Interestingly, most people found the data presented on high schools to be new information.

We have 15 minutes on the ETIC agenda; we must be prepared to use less time if necessary.  Dick Knight will present; workgroup chairs Eda Davis-Lowe, Ben Manny, and Eileen Boerger will also attend and be ready to answer questions.

The presentation “The Engineering and Computer Science Pipeline:A Program for Change” is the first six slides in the file http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/OPAS%20Initiative%20rik2-5-08-1.pdf; additional slides provide in-depth data which was rolled up into an executive summary format for the first six slides.  Feedback included:

• Overall, an excellent presentation.  Keep in mind that it is both an executive summary and a sales talk.  Data should give them a sense they are justified in buying in to this program.
• Get the total cost into the presentation earlier.
• Give impact data – the number of students participating at the end of 2 and 6 years, assuming a constant funding level of $4.4 M over the next 3 biennia.
• Use active verbs, consistent ordering of items in tables.
• Link costs to impacts.
• Where possible, list measurable impacts but do not over-quantify.
• If possible, include opportunities for matching/leveraging funds, creating sustainable programs, capacity building.
• Be careful of linking to tightly to particular programs or brands.
• Dick will do another revision for the meeting with ETIC chair Fred Ziari on Thursday, February 7, 2008 and possibly another for Friday’s meeting.

An additional summary sheet of financials is for internal OPAS use only, and will be revised to eliminate the cost rounding.

We need to begin thinking through criteria for reducing the cost of the Program for Change.  Let’s start this conversation now via email.  Possible candidate criteria:

• Longterm impact;
• ROI as measured by improvements in diversity;
• ROI as measured by increasing numbers of freshman;
• what can we really measure? 
• Risk reward.

The next meeting will be scheduled depending on the results of the ETIC meeting.  It is possible, but not likely, that it will be on Tuesday, February 12, 2008.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, February 5, 2008

Agenda #27, Wednesday, January 23, 2008

3:30 - 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
3:35 - 3:50	Updates on work on sub-plans for proposal to ETIC Prepare -- Dick Knight Pre-engineering Superquest Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Motivate -- Ben Manny
3:50 - 4:45	Continue legislative priorities planning What is possible to distribute to ETIC members on Jan. 31, 2008 present to ETIC on Feb 8, 2008? Next steps / division of labor Discussion and conclusions Action Items References: Latest draft of investment model (rev J) Possible template for sub-proposals
4:45 - 4:55	Other business (members should suggest topics before or during meeting)
4:55 – 5:00	Next Meeting: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:30 - 5:00 or sooner?

Summary: Nine members of the Steering Committee attended the January 23 meeting, which was conducted as a worksession reviewing sub-plan proposals for the OPAS Investment Model.

• The Investment Model will address segments by a combination of invitations to strategic partners to develop and submit proposals, and perhaps some highly selective and directed RFPs.  This investment is intended to transition programs to new levels of coverage and activity, that will become self-supporting or tap non-ETIC funding streams.
• Ben points out that because the first biennia coverage will necessarily be incomplete, we have the opportunity to measure the performance of schools with supported programs to schools without them.  Picking schools is a strategic choice; Dick notes we may choose the most committed schools first, but we must continue to be pro-actively serving the underserved and underrepresented.
• ETIC may be able to open up some private funding.
• Eda’s proposal for OST (out of school time) for grades 4-9 includes a mechanism for linking in-school and out-of-school things; we should be willing to violate the purity of the Investment Model’s segmentation to organize such partnerships to the best benefit of the student.  Dick says these ideas are so subtly presented, they need to be better highlighted to get people excited.
• Ben has been researching FIRST programs at the high school level, but is concerned about the missing social relevance piece that is so strongly stated at the FIRST LEGO League level.  FIRST uses a sports model, which may not be the most inclusive model.
• Dick:  There is a window between sophomore year and mid-senior year, when college applications are due, when we lose a lot of these kids.
• Back of the envelope calculation on all segments with what we’ve seen so far for subplans: $4 M.

Respectfully Submitted, Jo Oshiro, 01/29/08

Agenda #26, Tuesday, January 8, 2008

3:30 - 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
3:35 - 4:00	Review of status/plans of Workgroups - Status summary Motivate -- Eileen Boerger and Ben Manny Prepare -- Sean Gallagher and Dick Knight Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Pathways --Tom Thompson ETIC Computer Science Task Force -- Bruce Schafer Other activities of interest (Bruce) ETIC OWIB
4:00 - 4:45	Continue legislative priorities planning Communication goals Convey OPAS strategy as concretely as possible to enhance understanding and credibility. Set goals that are aggressive by achievable. Be consistent with standard planning processes. Engage partners and potential partners to achieve "win-win." Latest draft of investment model (rev I ) Possible template for sub-proposals Near-term milestones Pull together mini-task forces to debate issues and develop outline of plan Use subplans to extract measurable goals create summary using similar template Present to ETIC on Feb. 8, 2008 Issues How do we distinguish between opportunity category and possible solution at the same time we analyze what are feasible goals and related costs? How do we manage agressive goal setting vs. achievable goals How do we organize to get this done in January? Staff vs. volunteers Multiple meetings of small groups? Simplify process while manage trade off between developing a credible proposal and running out of time. Discussion and conclusions.
4:45 - 4:55	Other business (members should suggest topics before or during meeting)
4:55 – 5:00	Next Meeting: Wednesday, January 23, 2008, 3:30-5:00 p.m.

Detailed Meeting Record for #26 January 8, 2008 - in process

Summary: Nine committee members attended the January 8 meeting.

Workgroup status:

• Motivate:  Ben was able to get an NEM announcement into the Intel Retirees quarterly newsletter.  The volunteer survey is done, and we are looking at ways to get it into circulation.
• Prepare: 
• Jo has been working on structuring Judy D’Amico’s visit on January 22 – 23; she is the Director for State and Corporate Relations, Western Region, for the national Project Lead the Way (PLTW) organization. 
• Because of time and communications constraints, Dick responded as an individual to ODE’s State Plan for Career and Technical Education (CTE).  He will copy that document to anyone interested.
• We have distributed a few evaluation copies of the JETS (Junior Engineering Technical Society) diagnostic tool, Assess, and their marketing/PR/career piece, Explore.  Dick would like Motivate to consider taking over the Explore piece.  The Assess piece is too intimidating for widespread use.
• Succeed:  Much of the last meeting was devoted to the Investment Model; workgroup comments were transmitted to Bruce via Jo.  We’ve decided to break up the slides for the STEM Diversity Show; putting all possible choices in one file makes it too large, so we will divide it into higher ed audiences and all others.  Venues for presentation are OACTE (Oregon Association of Career and Technical Educators), COSA (Council of School Administrators), and perhaps others.
• Pathways:  Discussions and connections are being made to put Computer Science in place as the next target of a statewide articulation agreement.
• ETIC CS Taskforce
• ETIC:  The campuses have presented their draft plans, and now have the voting members’ critiques in hand.  This year ETIC has been careful to pay attention to both of their goals: a 5X increase in research and a 2X increase in bachelor’s degrees by 2013.

The Steering Committee continued legislative priorities planning:

• Process constraints:
• Convey OPAS strategy more concretely than in the past to enhance understanding and credibility;
• Define metrics;
• Be consistent with standard planning processes – legislature’s and ETIC’s.
• Engage partners and potential partners to achieve “win-win”.
• Bruce reviewed the latest revision of the Investment Model draft, and introduced a possible draft template for proposals for each segment or box of the Investment Model.  By January 31, in preparation for the Feb 8 ETIC meeting, we need more detail for each segment – what investment in the segment would look like, possible issues, costs, potential partners, identification of current programs, best practices, research basis, and proposed metrics.  Detailed costs, as shown on page 3 of the draft template, are not needed for the February 8 ETIC meeting.  We do not have staff bandwidth to complete this without substantial help, especially given the upcoming ORTOP tournaments.
• Links:
• Investment Model: http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/ETIC-OPAS-PreCollegeInvestmentModel2007I.pdf
• PossibleDraft Template: http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/OPASS/SubProposalTemplate2009-2011B.pdf
• Statewide Engineering & Applied Science Campaign to students, parents, teachers, counselors:
• Engineering and computer science are interesting and lucrative career disciplines.
• Programs exist in and outside the classroom for enriching student understanding and practice of STEM and teamwork skills.
• Builds on current GETREAL campaign and website.
• Ben will develop at least bullet points for this, and devote most of the next Motivate meeting on January 24 to this topic.
• Jo will get Ben copies of relevant proposals from the last funding round.
• Pre-engineering Curricula and Professional Development in Classrooms
• Based on PLTW and PLTW-like programs because of the criteria PLTW meets – standards-based, nationally-normed assessments, hands-on, open-ended problem-solving, program evaluation, ongoing support, not overly prescriptive.  Other relevant criteria?
• Dick will develop this.
• Jo will get Dick copies of relevant proposals.
• Computer Science Curricula and Professional Development
• Dick will develop this.
• Programs involving team engineering projects outside of the classroom, grades 9-12.
• Don Domes suggests that extra-duty contracts for teachers may be key here,  modeled on debate team, band and athletics.
• Eda will contribute bullet points to Bruce on this topic.
• Programs involving team programming projects outside of the classroom, grades 9-12.
• Jay Bockelman will contribute.
• Programs involving team engineering and science projects, grades 4-9
• Eda will develop this.
• Bruce will touch base with her on one model program, ORTOP.
• Jo will get Eda the 4H proposals for ORTOP teams.
• Diversity metrics:  Eda will get a list of appropriate metrics to Jo.
• Citations, data, research:
• Look at information compiled for the OPAS Workshop in November 2006.
• Look at the STEM Diversity Show, nearing final draft, by the Succeed Workgroup.
• Perkins IV: Jo to ask Tom, who was unable to attend this meeting, for how ramping up classroom pre-engineering curricula would relate to Perkins IV and attendant funding.
• Some subset of metrics consistent across programs would be very valuable to ongoing understanding and analysis of programs’ performance.

Next Meeting:  Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:30 – 5:00.

Agenda #25, Monday, December 17, 2007

3:30 - 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
3:35 - 4:00	Review of status/plans of Workgroups - Status summary Motivate -- Eileen Boerger and Ben Manny Prepare -- Sean Gallagher and Dick Knight Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Pathways --Tom Thompson ETIC Computer Science Task Force -- Bruce Schafer Other activities of interest (Bruce) ETIC OWIB
4:00 - 4:45	Continue legislative priorities planning DRAFT investment model (rev E, December 16, 2007) Milestones going forward Division of labor Potential partners Discussion and refinements
4:45 - 4:55	Other business (members should suggest topics before or during meeting)
4:55 – 5:00	Schedule next meeting

Meeting Record for December 17, 2007 - in process

Summary: Eleven members of the Steering Committee attended the meeting on December 17th.  This is Jeff Triplett’s last meeting with us; due to a reorganization at PCC John McKee will be taking over for him. Workgroup status was reviewed:

• Motivate:  the workgroup reacted positively to an earlier version of the draft investment model in November, and the co-chairs recently met to discuss how to fit workgroup efforts to that model and revitalize workgroup energy.  They plan a face-to-face meeting in late January.
• Prepare also reacted positively to the draft investment model early in December.  Their efforts have concentrated on defining a practical role in PLTW statewide advocacy and coordinating efforts with ODE, Tim Brower, and national PLTW resources.  SuperQuest remains a concern, but Techstart recently received a multi-year capacity-building grant from a private foundation.
• Pathways continues outside-of-meeting work on targeting Computer Science for the next statewide articulation agreement.
• ETIC CS Task Force, while not strictly an OPAS workgroup, has significant overlap of membership and interests.  It has been folded into the investment model with OPAS, and has so far been active in a marketing piece and is increasingly concerned with classroom curricula and the development of a venue for OST computer science.

The Oregon Workforce Investment Board (OWIB) commissioned Battelle to do an economic analysis of computer-related and engineering related workforce supply and demand based on the recently released 2006-2016 occupational openings projections from the Oregon Employment Department.   Their draft presentation showed a large over-supply; we helped check their figures and methodology; they are now less sure that they can do a valid supply and demand based on available data.  We will be working with them over the next month as they finalize their presentation.  Whether or not this particular analysis is correct, the need for some sort of verification of the assertion “We need more engineers and computer scientists” needs to be done.  The methodology and needs of business versus public policy may be different.  Benchmarking or simple ratios may be useful.

The Draft Investment Model (previously “legislative concepts”, “possible investment model”, and “Bruce’s Big Picture”) latest revision was presented and critiqued:

• For now, we are leaving off grades K-3; they may return in future biennia
• focused investment is really good
• avoid branding solutions (“PLTW”, “MESA”); set criteria instead
• “competition” is too loaded a word, especially for certain populations
• Diversity and inclusivity need to be much more explicit goals in the diagrams
• An evaluation component including longitudinal tracking would be extremely valuable
• Relationships to CTE need to be made explicit and fostered
• Solicit potential partners for their reactions and suggestions
• More detailed suggestions will be documented in the Meeting Record.

Because of the intent to present some form of this investment plan to ETIC in early February, two meetings are planned for January, on Tuesday, January 8 and Wednesday January 23.  Individual members of the committee will be solicited for additional help.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, December 18, 2007

Agenda #24, Monday, November 26, 2007

3:30 - 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
3:35 - 4:00	Review of status/plans of Workgroups - Status summary Motivate -- Eileen Boerger and Ben Manny Prepare -- Sean Gallagher and Dick Knight Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Pathways --Tom Thompson
4:00 - 4:40	Review legislative priorities planning Results of the balloting - final Nov 26 Possible investment model Conclusion: What proposal(s) should we take forward and how should they be packaged? Reference materials: Brainstorming document (Nov 6 ) now includes legislative concept list prioritization criteria (also linked here) Summary of Strategy, August 2007
4:40 - 4:55	Identify next steps for top priorities including possibly Develop more detailed description Consult with partners and relevant Boards Determine whether to take forward as legislative concept, pursue through alternative processes, or abandon
4:55 – 5:00	Schedule Next Meeting - December 11?

Summary:
Eleven members of the Steering Committee attended the November 26th meeting and welcomed new member Steffen Moller.  Steffen is the Dean of Business, Math, Sciences at Clackamas Community College and has taught Computer Science there.

Workgroup status update highlights:

• Motivate was the first group to see Bruce’s possible investment model, reacted positively, and the chairs have met to discuss ways to focus efforts around that model in the coming year.  The group plans a face-to-face meeting in January.
• Prepare is offering Tim Brower some specific help for statewide Project Lead the Way (PLTW) advocacy.  All data we have seen shows that PLTW is a solid product.  PLTW students go in to college engineering programs in high proportions, and do well during their freshman year.  PLTW does well across SES and ethnic groups but does not have the magic wand to recruit and retain women.  Prepare’s work with SuperQuest currently centers around reach.
• Succeed is wrapping up the road show products, and may present at OACTE and Oregon Math Leaders, and is considering additional venues, projects, and recruiting.
• Pathways is following up on a presentation to the Oregon Council of Computer Chairs (OCCC) to propose using Computer Science as the next target for statewide articulation agreements.  More investigation and groundwork is underway.

Results of the Legislative Priority Planning balloting were reviewed.  Based on input from the October 23 meeting and the ballot, Bruce has developed a possible investment model to place before the legislature or other funding sources.  He presented a draft of this model using a block diagram, with boxes for marketing, in-class pre-engineering programs, in-class CS programs, OST team/contest engineering activities, OST team/contest CS activities.  Example programs to address each block are the ETIC CS task force’s GetReal campaign; PLTW; FIRST Robotics, Tech Challenge, LEGO League and Junior FLL; and the Willamette-Techstart Programming Contest and SuperQuest.  All of the example programs are working somewhere in Oregon, focus on engineering and/or CS, and seem scalable.  The group concluded we should address program criteria, not brands.

Marketing and recruitment will be an important piece that needs further concept development, both for students directly and for counselors, teachers, and parents.  Inclusivity, especially of females, remains an issue to be effectively addressed.
Bruce and Jo will develop a plan and some materials to help divide the work among volunteers and workgroups.

The next meeting will be Monday, December 17.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, 12/14/07

Agenda #23, Tuesday, October 23, 2007

1:00 – 1:10	Introductions, opening remarks
1:10 - 1:30	Review of status/plans of Workgroups - Status summary Motivate -- Eileen Boerger and Ben Manny Prepare -- Sean Gallagher and Dick Knight Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Pathways --Tom Thompson
1:30 - 1:45	Discussion of process for developing Legislative Priorities
1:45 - 2:30	Review list of legislative priorities adding ideas as they come up shelving ideas which are already being covered by others Brainstorming document (Oct. 22) now includes legislative concept list prioritization criteria (also linked below) Summary of Strategy, August 2007
2:30 - 2:45	Combine ideas as appropriate, organize into major categories Review and adjust criteria for prioritizations
2:45 - 3:30	Conduct exercise identify top 3 priorities
3:30 - 3:55	Identify next steps for top priorities including possibly Develop more detailed description Consult with partners and relevant Boards Determine whether to take forward as legislative concept, pursue through alternative processes, or abandon
3:55 – 4:00	Schedule Next Meeting - November 13?

Summary:

Agenda #22, Tuesday, September 11, 2007

3:30 – 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
3:35 - 3:55	Review of status/plans of Workgroups - Status summary Motivate -- Eileen Boerger and Ben Manny Prepare -- Sean Gallagher and Dick Knight Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Pathways --Tom Thompson and Scott Giltz
3:55 - 4:00	Status/Plans for ETIC/OPAS Pre-college RFP - Notices of Interest
4:00 - 4:10	Marketing opportunities Marketing campaign targeting industry Web site targeting students, parents, teachers, counselors
4:10 - 4:55	Developing Legislative Concepts for 2009 Brainstorm possible concepts including ideas previously discussed Apply criteria to prioritize
4:55 – 5:00	Schedule Next Meeting in October -- in person? in Wilsonville?

Detailed Meeting Record for September 11, 2007 - coming soon

Summary as emailed and posted September 27, 2007: Eight members attended the September 11, 2007 meeting of the Steering Committee.

Workgroup status reports were reviewed briefly:

• Pathways will be working on exploring the possibilities for liaising with the Oregon Council of Computer Chairs and using Computer Science as the next Pathway to be articulated and mapped.  Tom will be meeting with Di Saunders to work on some marketing for workgroup outputs.
• Prepare is happy with a tight focus on Project Lead The Way (PLTW) and analogous ways to improve availability of Computer Science in K-12.

Marketing:  Di Saunders recommended a campaign, strongly supported by the Chair and Vice-Chair of ETIC:

• Message:  ETIC and OPAS exist, and are active and knowledgeable in current efforts to prepare Oregon’s future workforce for STEM careers.
• Target:
  • Industry
  • Professional Groups: e.g., IEEE, SAO, ASCE
  • Civic Groups: e.g., Kiwanis, OBA
  • Foundations
• Means: build a cadre of speakers and a set of materials to deliver the message
• Goal: get more support, primarily from industry, for resources, expertise, mentorships, political will.

Student website:  Possibilities for an OPAS website targeting students were also discussed, either as a new project, or as a future generation of the ETIC Computer Science Task Force’s GETREAL website.   A strong connection to current and future Pathways work makes sense here.  The group showed enthusiasm for such a website, tempered by concern for the ability to maintain interesting, dynamic content that is adequately “sticky” for kids and parents, and for identifying appropriate timing, connections, and leverage points.

Legislative Concepts:  Although the group hoped to get to prioritization, no firm decisions were made.  Another possibility to add to the list: a STEM center to do the work of OPAS with real money and real staffing; with more resources, efforts would not be tied to a particular strategy when new opportunities arise. Some other states are starting to use this model, particularly Texas and Tennessee. Tom Thompson is our link to much of the activity in educational infrastructure going on in the state; he would prefer to see OPAS create resources to aid in local decision-making – “when people hit the reality of having to do something, there’s something out there for them to do” – rather than create incentives, overlap with existing efforts in teacher preparation (although the America COMPETES act will make some federal funds available for teacher prep and OPAS could possibly be instrumental in orchestrating a consortium to access those funds), or school improvement.   This discussion will be continued in depth at our next meeting.

Next Meeting:  Jo will poll for a meeting date of Monday, October 22 or Tuesday, October 23 and arrange for a longer than usual meeting in a more central location, probably Wilsonville.

Agenda #21, Thursday, August 16, 2007

3:30 – 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
3:35 - 3:45	Review of status/plans of Workgroups - Status summary Motivate -- Eileen Boerger and Ben Manny Prepare -- Sean Gallagher and Dick Knight Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Pathways --Tom Thompson and Scott Giltz
3:45 - 4:00	Status/Plans for ETIC/OPAS Pre-college RFP including OPAS Strategy overview
4:00 - 4:55	Developing Legislative Concepts for 2009 Review criteria Brainstorm possible concepts including ideas previous discussed Apply criteria to prioritize
4:55 – 5:00	Next Meeting: Tuesday, September 11, 3:30 - 5:00?

Criteria for prioritizing possible legislative concepts

Possible ideas for legislative concepts

• Pre-service teacher preparation
• In-service professional development
• Integration of technology including computer science in science standards
  • Middle School
  • High School
• Endorsement area for computer science or ...
• Funding for technology courses, e.g. base x 1.3 for technology courses
• Incentives for future teachers, e.g. tuition forgiveness
• Creating bridge programs for under represented students to support the transition to college
• Tax credits to business for
  • establishing internships
  • connecting to classrooms
• Early-year salary supplement for teachers in shortage areas
• Gather data on level of preparation vs. success of students
  • High to college
  • Community college to university
• Make it easier for technology professionals to become teachers

Detailed Meeting Notes for August 16, 2007

Seven members of the committee attended a meeting on August 16, 2007.
 Workgroup status reports were distributed.  Additional highlights were given by Ben Manny (Motivate) and Dick Knight (Prepare).
·        Margie Lowe, Policy Adviser to the Governor’s office, met with Mary Beth Horton of the BEC to explore ways to enable government agencies to offer internships.
·        Don Domes pointed to a shortage of CTE and CS teachers that could limit the impact of our efforts to motivate students to sign up for these courses.
·        ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) will host a national SIGCSE (Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education) Conference in Portland in March of 2008.  We should consider what opportunities there might be for OPAS, especially for connecting with national experts and leaders.
·        “Transitions: The Two High School Pillars Supporting College Science” from the AAAS Journal Science implies that math is the critical factor in introductory college science class success, which agrees with intuitive and anecdotal evidence.  It is unclear whether the observed pattern means that taking math makes students more successful, or that higher-achieving students take more math and continue to achieve at higher levels after high school.
·        Exposure to math in an application setting is critical for retention.
·        Nationwide, one out of two CTE students is also taking a college prep curriculum.

The ETIC/OPAS Pre-college RFP is expected to be reviewed by the Oregon Department of Justice approval by August 17.  After any needed changes are made it will be formally publicized.
·         The RFP was approved and distributed by email starting on August 20 to OUS campuses, community college campuses, the OPAS interest listserv, school districts and administrators, and regional PTE representatives.  As a follow up, hard copies were sent via mail.
·        As part of the RFP, a summary of strategy has been written; this was approved unanimously by the committee.
·        Final grant approvals will be made at the ETIC meeting on October 26, or at a special phone meeting in November.
·        Possible alternate configurations for future RFPs was discussed.

Prioritization, packaging, criteria and new and previously discussed ideas for legislative concepts were discussed.
·        We should develop know more than three legislative concepts, fewer if possible.  None if we can accomplish our goals without legislation.
·        Some concern that multiple concepts in a bill create greater risk of derailment; on the other hand, presenting concepts creates the opportunity for these needs to be addressed in ways other than legislation.
·        Legislation can be coercive, provide an incentive, or fill a gap.  ETIC’s success is due to the use of carrots rather than sticks by providing sources of incremental funding as a method for planning, advocacy, and oversight.
·        Funding bills have a two-year impact unless renewed.   Policy legislation lasts indefinitely unless a sunset is specified.
·        Tax incentives may be part of legislative solutions, and typically  last indefinitely.
·        We should develop properly sequenced concepts over multiple biennia.

Potential concepts discussed at this meeting:
·        Tuition loan waivers for future teachers in certain disciplines.
·        Summer bridge programs.
·        Tax credits
o       for businesses providing internships.
o       for businesses connecting to classrooms.
·        Differential compensation for early-career teachers in critical shortage areas .
·        Study on methods of preparation of high school students for college.
·        A computer science endorsement for teachers.
·        Additional funding of technology courses, perhaps calculated as base rate x 1.3 (standard courses funded at base rate; Washington uses a model like this.)

Areas in which we need more knowledge were identified:
·        What does it take to become a teacher at public universities in Oregon?  At private universities?
·        Is it true that most teachers are from private schools? Why?
·        We need to talk further with some School of Education people, perhaps Sam Stern of OSU.
State standards: It is difficult to get states to add technology to science standards but some have added engineering problem solving and design to science inquiry standards.  There is a drive to reduce the amount of detail in standards, especially prescriptive "laundry lists" of required content.  Massachusetts has been at the forefront of integrating science and technology standards, but has not so far demonstrated clear success with this approach.

The next meeting will be Tuesday, September 11, 2007.

Respectfully, Jo Oshiro, 09/07/07 (previously emailed to workgroup members).

Agenda #20, Tuesday, July 31, 2007 (rescheduled from July 10)

3:30 – 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
3:35 - 3:45	Review of status/plans of Workgroups - Status summary Motivate -- Eileen Boerger and Ben Manny Prepare -- Sean Gallagher and Dick Knight Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Pathways --Tom Thompson and Scott Giltz
3:45 - 4:15	Status/Plans for ETIC/OPAS Pre-college RFP Budget, Eligibility, Grant range, and Selection criteria Timeline: Issue RFP, receive and review proposals, recommendations for review and approval by ETIC on 10/26/07 Plans for scoresheet and rubric Possible review committee: Meslow, Boerger, Boyonvsky, Miller, Thompson Issue: Will number of proposals require subcommittees? If so, can we randomly assign proposals to committees? Issue: Should we encourage proposals from individual schools? Issue: Should we create white paper summarizing OPAS Strategy and make available to those preparing proposals?
4:15 - 4:30	Legislative Process General Process Legislative Concepts Policy Option Package Possible OPAS Process Issues: Relationship to Oregon Board Initiatives OSBHE OSBE Relationship to national initiatives Congress' changes to Carl Perkins program NGA's Retooling Career Technical Education Alternatives to Legislation
4:30 - 4:55	Brainstorm possible legislative concepts for 2009 Pre-service teacher preparation In-service professional development Integration of technology including CS in science standards Middle School High School Endorsement area for computer science or ... Funding for technology courses Other
4:55 – 5:00	Next Meeting Second Tuesday August 28, 3:30 - 5:00 ok?

Detailed notes for July 31, 2007 - coming soon

Summary: Eleven members of the committee were present.  Workgroup chairs reported on progress and status.

The process, selection criteria, eligibility criteria for the ETIC/OPAS Pre-college RFP were discussed.  The July 20 ETIC meeting approved this RFP for an accelerated release schedule, to be funded by $390K from the ETIC add-on budget recently approved by the legislature.  The consensus is, subject to Bruce’s checking on rules/procedures, that we will leverage the expertise of OPAS committee members and emplace a procedure to document any conflicts of interest with members abstaining from scoring particular proposals as appropriate.  To make it easier for those writing proposals to understand the OPAS strategy we will develop a “white paper” summarizing the OPAS strategies.  To enhance the quality and consistently of the reviews of proposals, we will develop a scoring rubric.  The RFP, the white paper, the rubric and score sheets much be clear and consistent. 

A possible process for considering possible legislative concepts was explained and discussed.  Additional material was presented that summarizes recent and ongoing work of related entities, some of whom might be possible collaborative partners.  The group consensus is that this would be a worthwhile pursuit, especially with additional input from the workgroups.  An all-OPAS meeting should be part of this process, but because of the need to start right away, such a meeting would be more of a culmination than a kick-off.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro & Bruce Schafer, 08/06/07

Agenda #19, Tuesday, June 12, 2007

3:30 – 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
3:35 - 3:45	Legislative update (Bruce) Budget Legislation HB 2614 -- Establishes Education Enterprise Coordinating Commission within Department of Education. SB 589 -- Directs Department of Education to conduct study on career and technical education.
3:45 - 4:15	OPAS External Funding Review summary of workgroup input Should we establish communication with one or more foundations members of Oregon Congressional delegation
4:15 - 4:35	Review of status/plans of Workgroups including charters, recruiting, kick-off plans - Status summary Motivate -- Eileen Boerger and Ben Manny Prepare -- Sean Gallagher and Dick Knight Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Pathways --Tom Thompson and Scott Giltz
4:35 - 4:50	Brainstorm possible legislative concepts for 2009 Pre-service teacher preparation In-service professional development Integration of technology in science standards Endorsment area for computer science or ... Other
4:50 - 4:55	Other activity of interest?
4:55 – 5:00	Next Meeting Second Tuesday June 12, 3:30 - 5:00 ok?

Detailed Notes for June 12, 2007- coming soon

Summary: Nine members, including staff, attended the most recent meeting of the Steering Committee on June 12, 2007.

Legislative funding for both OUS and community colleges is now below the level of their asks, but above the Governor's Recommended Budget.  This is not quite true the ETIC portion of the OUS budget but ETIC did receive a significant increase: ETIC’s ask for additional funding over the base budget was $34 M, trimmed to $17 M by the Governor, and is now at $15 M.

ETIC’s pre-college programs funding solicitation to the campuses went out in May; proposals have been reviewed.  Pending requested budget revisions, the Review Committee will make a set of recommendations for allocation at the ETIC meeting on July 20, 2007, subject to approval by the State Board of Higher Education.

Legislative prospects for HB2614 (which includes a clearing hosue for professional development as a service to school districts) and SB 589 (CTE study) were discussed.  The CTE study was also the subject of an ODE budget note.

Coordinating with federal funding was discussed.  Any recap of Perkins funding and planning was tabled until the end of summer, because a lot of changes and decisions are planned for the summer.

Results of workgroup discussions on suitable projects for funding was reviewed and further discussed.  Jo will distribute the results to all workgroup members.  We will continue to visit this issue, and map out a sequence for establishing communications with foundations and the Congressional delegations and asking for funding.

Brainstorming possible legislative concepts for 2009 was tabled for the next meeting with an explanation of timing and structure.  Bruce and Jo will propose a process at the next meeting.   Ideally, concepts will be chosen by early fall, polished, and ready to advance by February/March 2008.

The next meeting is Tuesday, July 10, 2007.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro, 6/18/2007

Agenda #18, Wednesday, May 16, 2007

3:30 – 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
	Legislative update (Bruce)
	OPAS External Funding Review workgroup input via worksheets Issues/Opportunities How organized: Steering committee ownership or another subcommittee or taskforce? What is our value add: Encourage/facilitate member proposals for federal/foundation grants Identifty federal funding opportunities Develop relationships with local foundations Develop relationship with Oregon Congressional delegation Establish matching fund Other ideas NSF Primer (Eda)
	Review of status/plans of Workgroups including charters, recruiting, kick-off plans - Status summary Motivate -- Jo for Eileen Boerger and Ben Manny Prepare -- Sean Gallagher and Dick Knight Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Pathways --Tom Thompson and Scott Giltz
4:50 - 4:55	Other activity of interest?
4:55 – 5:00	Next Meeting Second Tuesday June 12, 3:30 - 5:00 ok?

Detailed Notes for May 15, 2007

Summary: On the legislative front, forecasted tax revenue projections are up $152 million, much of which is slated for higher education but will at least several more weeks before we know the final allocation.  The detailed disposition of the ETIC allocation will be no sooner than the July 20th meeting.  Jeff Triplett reported that the community colleges’ allocation appears to be slightly above the Governor’s budget, but still significantly below their original ask.

The workgroups’ feedback on the two funding exercises will be collated and distributed.  In the meantime, some of the input could be summarized as follows:

Exercise 1, “What would we do with $1 Million of External Funding” elicited a variety of suggestions for enhancing existing programs, using existing models, and leveraging additional funds.  Many of these focused directly on teachers.

Exercise 2,Criteria for an OPAS RFP: Include the reach of the project, demonstrated impact or effectiveness, and a plan or model for financial sustainability, be focused, and project goals should mesh with the workgroups’ strategies.

The group’s discussion of other aspects of external funding touched on
- concerns about not thinking big enough, recognizing scalability;
- properly addressing NSF Broader Impact and Outreach (also known as EPO, Education and Public Outreach) requirements; and
- the OPAS Initiative’s ability to offer things other than money, notably help developing business plans, asks, and strategic management to the appropriate scale.   Possible sources of external funding, which will take different strategies to tap, include foundations such as Murdoch and Ford Family, Congressinal ear-marks, Perkins funds, and NSF.

Respectfully submitted, Jo Oshiro 5/18/07 updated 5/24/07

Agenda #17, Tuesday, April 24, 2007

3:30 – 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
	Legislative update (Bruce)
3:35 - 4:25	Review of status/plans of Workgroups including charters, recruiting, kick-off plans - Status summary Motivate -- Jo for Eileen Boerger and Ben Manny Prepare -- Sean Gallagher and Dick Knight Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Pathways -- Susan Boyanovsky and Scott Giltz Brief news bulletins PAVTEC Middle School Girls Conference (OSU, ORTOP, GS) George Fox Engineering Expo PR OHSU - Robotics Clubs AeA Scholarships achieve greater diversity, streamlined process MESA Pre-Engineering Conference PLTW Additional signups (7 new schools)
4:25 - 4:50	OPAS External Funding Review workgroup input via worksheets Issues/Opportunities Steering committee ownership or another subcommittee or taskforce? Matching strategy - encourage outside funding Encourage/facilitate member proposals for federal/foundation grants NSF Primer - for discussion and review at the next meeting
4:50 - 4:55	Other activity of interest?
4:55 – 5:00	Next Meeting Second Tuesday May 8 3:30 - 5:00 ok?

Agenda, Tuesday, March 13, 2007

3:30 – 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
3:35 - 4:25	Review of status/plans of Workgroups including charters, recruiting, kick-off plans - Status summary Motivate -- Eileen Boerger and Ben Manny Prepare -- Sean Gallagher and Dick Knight Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Pathways -- Susan Boyanovsky and Scott Giltz NOISE leadership meeting March 2 (Ben?)
4:25 - 4:50	OPAS External Funding - Brainstorm Delegate to workgroups? Steering committee ownership? another subcommittee or taskforce? Matching strategy - encourage outside funding Possible RFP structure Intel community model Encourage/facilitate member proposals for federal/foundation grants
4:50 - 4:55	Other activity of interest?
4:55 – 5:00	Next Meeting Second Tuesday April 10 3:30 - 5:00 ok?

Detailed Notes for March 13, 2007

Agenda, Tuesday, February 13, 2007

3:30 – 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
3:35 - 4:25	Review of status/plans of Workgroups including charters, recruiting, kick-off plans, methods Motivate -- Eileen Boerger and Ben Manny Prepare -- Sean Gallagher and Dick Knight Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Pathways -- Susan Boyanovsky and Scott Giltz
4:25 - 4:45	OPAS Funding OPAS Policy Option Package Status Possible scenarios Federal funding opportunities Foundation funding opportunities
4:45 - 4:55	Other activity of interest NOISE Conference on February 5, 2007 Web site enhancements Other activities -- underway or potential
4:55 – 5:00	Scheduling of next meeting and adjournment

Detailed Notes for February 13, 2007

Agenda, Tuesday, January 16, 2007

3:30 – 3:40	Introductions, opening remarks
3:40 - 4:30	Review of new workgroups -- charters, kick-off plans Motivate -- Eileen Boerger and Ben Manny Prepare -- Sean Galliger and Dick Knight Succeed -- Eda Davis-Butts Pathways -- Susan Boyanovsky & Scott Giltz
4:30 - 4:50	OPAS Funding OPAS Policy Option Package Status Possible scenarios Federal funding opportunities Foundation funding opportunities
4:50 - 4:55	Other activity of interest PR/Communication Notebook OPAS Retrospective
4:55 – 5:00	Scheduling of next meeting and adjournment

Detailed Notes for January 16, 2007

Agenda, Friday, December 15, 2006

3:30 – 3:40	Introductions, opening remarks
3:40 - 4:20	Fall Workshop Report Implications for Committee Structure How many committees should we have going forward? What should they be? How do their charters relate to our top-three strategies? Implications for OPAS Activities in 2006 Implications for OPAS RFP covering July 2007-June 2009
4:20 - 4:40	OPAS Funding OPAS Policy Option Package Status Possible scenarios Opportunity on March 5, 2007 Other opportunities Federal funding opportunities NSF 07-514 Information Technology Experiences for Students & Teachers (ITEST) (25 pg pdf) Others Foundation funding opportunities
4:40 – 4:55	Current Committee Activity ACSW/CPTH Flyover Template - scrubbed in favor of "subway map" model Pending - SAMR Counselor Focus Group Wrap-up - SAMR Sparking an Interest in Engineering Surveys' Data Analysis
	Other activity of interest AEA Scholarship website is up, brochures have been mailed.
4:55 – 5:00	Scheduling of next meeting and adjournment

Detailed Notes for December 15, 2006

November 17, 2006 Workshop Home Page

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

3:30 – 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
3:35 – 4:15	OPAS External Communications (Dick) Executive Summary and Table
4:15 – 4:40	Fall Workshop Planning Draft Agenda & Format (Dick & Jo) Materials Advance readings (recommended 5-10 pages) Day of handouts (variation of advance reading above)
4:40 – 4:55	Committee Status and Plans Alignment and Coordination System-wide & Career Pathways (Susan) Student Success - as of 10/24 24 HS, 92 College Student respondents Others
4:55 – 5:00	Scheduling of next meeting and adjournment

Detailed Notes for October 25, 2006

November 17, 2006 Workshop Home Page

Agenda, Tuesday, September 12, 2006

3:30 – 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
3:35 -- 4:15	Fall Workshop Planning Location Alternatives Topics and Issues Date/Time Format/Agenda
4:15 - 4:40	Strategy Analysis Criteria Rating Matrix
4:40 -- 4:55	Committee Status and Plans Student Success Others
4:55 – 5:00	Scheduling of next meeting and adjournment

Detailed Notes for September 12, 2006

Agenda, Tuesday, August 29, 2006

3:00 – 3:05	Introductions, opening remarks
3:05-3:40	High School Graduation Requirements Position Paper on Science Graduation Requirement Relationship to Board of Education's deliberations on High School Graduation Requirements Connections to ODE staff and members of Board of Education
3:40 -- 4:15	Fall Workshop Planning Date/Time Place Topics and Issues Format/Agenda
4:15 - 4:30	Staff reports Website changes - Master Resources List (Jo/Jeremy) Google Search feature -- on Resources page and top of OPAS home page EPIC Grant - PI David Conley (Jo)
4:30 -- 4:55	Committee Status and Plans Marketing: Including working list of potential efforts Curricular & Co-curricular Others
4:55 – 5:00	Scheduling of next meeting and adjournment

Detailed Notes for August 29, 2006

OPAS Workshop – November 17, 2006
Possible Advance Reading Materials

Framing the Problem

Trends

1. CS & Engineering majors
2. Science & math scores
3. Diversity
4. Jobs: quantity, pay level, importing talent, outsourcing

Key assessments: Quotes or Abstracts from

1. The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman
2. Rising above the Gathering Storm, National Academies
3. They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different; Stalking the Second Tier,  Shirley Tobias

Abstracts from

1. ASEE Conference papers, website, magazine
2. ACM/CSTA
3. ITAA
4. NSF

Other context info

1. ODE/Board of Education Work
2. ETIC
3. Board of Higher Education
4. PASS

Framing our Common Understanding

1. Diagrams

Preparing for prioritizing Strategies

1. Definitions of candidate strategies
2. Criteria for prioritization
3. Intervention methods: policy, practice, delivery
4. Matrix mapping candidate strategies to intervention methods

Possible Issues to Discuss at Fall 2006 OPAS Workshop

Issue 1: What should be our top three strategies? Which of the following strategies are necessary to accomplish our goals? Which in combination are sufficient? Which should be left to others and which should be the focus of OPAS? What are our top three priorities?

Issue 2: How can we collaborate to obtain additional resources from

• NSF, Dept of Education, and other federal agencies
• Federal set-asides
• Foundations

List of Possible Strategies

• Improving Oregon’s standards and assessments.
• Improving availability of textbooks and other teaching materials that feature pre-engineering and applied science.
• Increasing the availability of professional development opportunities covering

• Pre-engineering & applied science
• Teaching methods
• Active learning
• Student inquiry
• Teamwork and engineering problem solving

• Improving pre-service programs’ coverage of (a) and (b) above.
• Increasing the number of teachers with expertise in pre-engineering and applied science.
• Increasing the number of schools that offer pre-engineering & applied science courses or include such material in regular science and math courses.
• Assuring that the outcomes of courses are aligned with the prerequisites of more advanced courses.
• Increasing the enrollment and successful completion of STEM courses by young women and minorities through outreach programs or other methods
• Documenting a variety of pre-engineering and applied science degree and career pathways.
• Increasing students’ and knowledge of and interest in college programs and related degrees through
  • marketing;
  • outreach programs;
  • job shadows; or
  • internships
• What else?

Draft Critieria for Rating Strategic Alternatives

• Allignment with vision and mission
• Total Impact
• Elapsed Time Required
• Resources Needed
• Likelihood of Success
• Leverating other work
• Match to experitise & passions of members

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