Jerry Berger, Oregon State Board of Education

Unified Educational Enterprise MeetingMinutes, April 4, 2007

Chair: Jerry Berger, Member, State Board of Education

Recorder: Jan McComb, Board Administrator, State Board of Education

Members Present:

Unified Educational Enterprise MeetingMinutes, April 4, 2007

Jerry BergerMember, State Board of Education

James SagerGovernor’s Office, Education Advisor

Gretchen SchuetteMember, Board of Higher Education

Nikki SquireMember, State Board of Education

Tony Van VlietMember, Board of Higher Education

Unified Educational Enterprise MeetingMinutes, April 4, 2007

Other Attendees:

Unified Educational Enterprise MeetingMinutes, April 4, 2007

Pat BurkODE, Chief Policy Officer

Mark EndsleyOUS, Director K16 Alignment

Connie GreenCCWD, Special Projects

Dalton Miller JonesOUS,

Margie LoweGovernor’s Office, Policy Advisor

Robert MercerOUS, Director Enrollment Policy

George PernsteinerOUS, Chancellor

Shawn SmallmanPSU, Interim VP Instruction

Reine ThomasPCC Rock Creek, Dean of Instruction

Joan Jagodnik, PSU

Elaine Yandle-RothCCWD, Instructional Program Specialist

Jon Weins, ODE, Ed Specialist, Math/PK-20

Michelle HooperODE, Director, Systems Coordination

Doug KostyODE, Asst. Superintendent, Assessment

Jan McCombODE, Board Admininistrator

Karen SpragueOUS, Vice President for Undergraduate

Studies

Mina CarsonInterinstitutional Faculty Senate

Marcia StuartOUS, Associate Board Secretary

Lita CooliganGovernor’s Office, Workforce Advisor

Unified Educational Enterprise MeetingMinutes, April 4, 2007

Common Acronyms:

Unified Educational Enterprise MeetingMinutes, April 4, 2007

AA/OTAssociate of Arts Oregon Transfer

ATLASArticulated Transfer and Linked Audit System

EDPExcellence in Delivery and Productivity

CCCommunity College

CCWDCommunity College and Workforce Development

CIACouncil of Instructional Administrators (Comm.College)

CSSACouncil of Student Services Administrators

IDTSIntegrated Data Transfer System

IFSInterinstitutional Faculty Senate

JBACJoint Boards Articulation Commission

K-12Kindergarten through 12th grade

PK-20Preschool through advanced degree

ODEOregon Department of Education

OSAOregon Student Association

OSBHEOregonState Board of Higher Education

OTMOregon Transfer Module

OUSOregonUniversity System

POPPolicy Option Package

SBSenate Bill

SBEState Board of Education

UEEUnified Educational Enterprise

Unified Educational Enterprise MeetingMinutes, April 4, 2007

WELCOMEAND INTRODUCTIONS

Jerry Berger, Chair of UEE Committee, called the meeting to order at 2:10 pm. He thanked Connie Green, Robert Mercer, Salam Noor and Karen Sprague for putting together theagenda. He noted it was a busy time and difficult to schedule meetings. He welcomed committee members and guests, and asked for introductions.

aNTICIPATED OUTCOMES

Understand the current status of each item on the UEE Work Plan and those responsible for the work.
Consider further progress on the UEE Work Plan and agree to specific next steps and those responsible for them.
Understand the status of work on SB 342, SB 300/SB 23 and SB 364/SB589, and the relationship of these bills to particular items in the current UEE Work Plan.

Discussion

Chair Berger reviewed the anticipated outcomes of the meeting, and asked for the status of the UEE work plan items.

STATUS OF UEE WORK PLAN ITEMS

Alignment of Standards and Assessments

Discussion

Salam Noor distributed a document entitled, Unified Education Enterprise Workplan Update, April 4, 2007. The document described the UEE priority area, a status update on each area, and related 2007 legislation. Currently, the K-12 standards, particularly high school standards, do not consistently fit with college expectations. As a result, some students take multiple exams, whose relationships are unclear and whose value and purpose are not evident. This wastes valuable time and resources for students and institutions, and creates a disincentive for students to take assessments seriously.

In response, the ODE has contracted with WestEd, a nonprofit, research, and service agency. Among its specialties are education assessment and accountability; early childhood and youth development; program evaluation; community building; and policy analysis.WestEd will review the ODE content standards for clarity, coherence, and alignment. The review is not at a point where findings can be gleaned. Noor stated that he has insured broad-based participation in this review work, including representatives from the Oregon University System, community colleges, and others. The groups have not been brought together yet as they were waiting for West Ed's final report.

Jon Weins, ODE, reviewed the standards review process. He noted that it had been many years since a review of the standards. The review included eachstandard at each grade level and included a review of the alignment of the standards with the assessments. A“peer review” of standards/assessments alignment is required before federal approval of the state’s assessment system. The review is on the common curriculum goal level, and feds have approved that level of review. The draft report is 150 pages, so there is hope to summarize the expected lengthy final document.The final report is due this Friday (April 6, 2007). The second report is due April 16th, with a detailed review of standards and assessment. Standards have been revised, but some item pool items have been retained. WestEd will comment on core standards and essential skills standards. Core standards will be a subset of the larger universe of standards. WestEd may help identify core standards. They will also look at special populations such as ELL and how to accommodate those within the standards. Noor added that WestEd will look at standards and assessments with SB 342 in mind, such as placement exams and assessment exams. They want WestEd to look at the alignment with postsecondary institutions, as well.

Connie Green, CCWD, asked what information the State Board of Higher Education, or other parties, needed to continue this P-20 connection of standards review. For example, the Provost Council must be aware of the work/schedule in order for timely input.

Karen Sprague, OUS, stated that two efforts were ongoing – SB 342, to define criteria for good General Education courses, and the work to ensure the transfer of those credits. In the course of doing that, desired outcomes for the broad subject areas were described. These, however, were never meant to be measurable. Meanwhile, there’s also interest in developing and measuring outcomes for some courses. The Provost Council is beginning to think about how to best approach this. Schools are all different from one another, but there may be common principles.

Tony Van Vliet noted that each college has curriculum building teams, at a level lower than provosts; it might be enormously helpful to have their participation and understand their expectations.

Noor added that the more people that can be connected the better. These people can be added to the Critical Friends group.

Dalton Miller-Jones, OUS, observed that higher education faculty members were creatures of their departments and disciplines. He noted that faculty hadalready invested a great deal of time and resources into standards review work. It would be good to avoid reinventing the wheel and build on past work, such as PASS.

Tony Van Vliet stated that identifying General Education requirements had a long history, and was subject to the push and pull of the various departments. For example, Engineering Departments want to squeeze in more of their specialty course and squeeze out some of the General Education courses. He asked if it was possible to do a better job in general by having fewer courses.

Noor stated that he believed so, and theWestEd review was structured in a way to allow for that outcome. It could be that the study would recommend the development of 11th and/or 12th grade standards. It is incumbent on the postsecondary system to say what set of standards they want us to use for alignment.Connie Green noted that the postsecondary system had multiple systems. Lita Colligan added that there were apprenticeship and other postsecondary programs, other than community college andOUS.

Noor noted that the State Board of Education’s EssentialSkills starts to address workplace standards, and Colligan recommended including industry partners or a big segment of postsecondary opportunities will be missed. Noor explained that the review included career-related standards, connections to postsecondary options, and assessments. Mark Endsley noted that community colleges were involved in this process (standards review) with the development of PREP standards. Dalton Miller-Jones stated that faculty were likely to respond with PASS standards, and those standards had prior community college input. George Pernsteiner recommended the next step be to meet with community colleges.Gretchen Schuette stated that she wanted to ensure a process that outlasted particular individuals.

Noor stated that the contract with WestEd ended this summer and his concern was the timeline and getting input in time. The Critical Friends group has community colleges representation. This information can also be disseminated more broadly. UEE participants are on the Critical Friends list and ensures a feedback loop back to UEE.

Connie Green suggested that a smaller group tackle the issue of sustainability of this effort and suggested looking at how we sustain the current efforts of alignment with AP, PASS, and community college placement tests, as a starting point, then identify gaps.

Karen Sprague stated that it might be overwhelming to try to precisely align with every subject, but a focus on math and writing might be more do-able.

Noor noted that a long paper on alignment had been completed with the goal of removing ambiguity for students and could be redistributed. Noor added that complaints about assessments needed to be considered. That students are placed in courses below their level, based on college placement tests.

Kosty noted that if you don’t know what you are trying to measure, then it is difficult to do so. Geroge Pernsteiner stated that 11th graders needed to know what the expectations were for postsecondary options. Options should be simple and understandable. Noor stated that identifying the standards and proficiencies for Essential Skills would be a good starting place. Miller-Jones noted that the Essential Skills were old CIM process skills, and some were exceedingly difficult to measure. Noor responded that some Essential Skills may prove to be un-assessable or require multiple assessment modalities. Nikki Squire questioned whether there should be a single measure of some of these skills, and reminded them that the K-12 board rejected a single exit exam, and that students should have multiple ways of assessing skills; the board wants those assessment methods to be acceptable to higher education institutions.

Agreement:

When the report from WestEd is complete, it will be forwarded to others who may be interested in providing input
Members will review Critical Friends list and add people, as needed.
Critical Friends will provide input.
Final reports will be online and available to all.
Salam will provide the alignment paper to UEE
The staff toUEE will suggest a “sustainable process” for alignment

Policy Governing Accelerated Learning

Discussion

Elaine Yandle-Roth, CCWD,reviewedaccelerated options for students. There are three basic models for delivery of collegiate level instruction to high school students in Oregon:

Selected high school instructor teaching collegiate level course at the high school during the regular school day;
A wide variety of other deliver models under an agreement between the high school and post-secondary institutions (includes SB 300), and
A student independently enrolling at the community college or university.

Programs have sprung up independently and have their own“brand names” used for marketing purposes. Theyall basically do the same thing but they do want to keep their brand name, which the community understands. There has been a major push to offer this kind of service. Nearly 20,000 students took advantage of this in 2005-06. Some data is incomplete due to schools completing the form differently. There are also a variety costs charged to students, which generally is very low. All the programs have grown up locally with partnerships between the school districts, community college, and OUS. The cost to the system, not in the report, is also all over the map.

Instructor qualification is another issue. OUS has fewer instructor requirements and may at times claim that the class may be substandard at a High School approved by a community college. OUS faculty actually has more flexibility in this area and may be less “degreed.”There’s some tension between the two systems on the quality of instruction, the consistency and the value to the student. Issues have been brought to JBAC in the past.

Another issue is access. In the past, statewide access to these programs did not exist. Now, all parts of the state and all high schools are currently participating in some type of program. Connie Green noted that community college statute and administrative rules require the community colleges to approach high schools and offer these programs. Community college textbooks are changedno oftener than every five years so high schools do not have this expense more often. Yandle-Roth noted that the community collegestaff in charge of these programs tends to be stable and full-time, and as a result, consistent. Robert Mercer stated only one OUS institution offered no program, the development of which had been idiosyncratic. Salam Noor added that tech-prep programs initiated many of those programs through 2+2 programs. Mark Endsley said that a barrier might be the high school teachers certification requirements Green noted that MATs can’t teach for community colleges; faculty require a master’s degree in their content area.

Karen Sprague explained thatConnie Green and she had put together next steps. Earning college credits in high school had begun with an effort to raise the rigor of high school, but it also gives students a taste of college and may inspire them to go to college. There are many professional development opportunities for the high school teachers. The programs in Oregon are AP, IB, and College Now:Dual Credit, OUS Dual Credit; CC/OUS-enrolled; and College Now:Tech Prep.

What are the current policies for state and locally developed programs that assure quality with the acceleration programs? This is not an issue for AP, IB, which are nationally done) State-level policy requires community colleges to specify and file with CCWD requirements for instructors and methods for selecting student participants, and assurance that materials and subject matter are collegiate-level. An annual evaluation of programs is also required regarding student outcomes, instructors’ qualifications. Local policy then spells out the details.

As for OUS policy, nothing is spelled out on the state level, aside from policies governing OUS academic programs and local policies. Requirements for Tech Prep are similar to community college requirements. WICHE wrote an article on best practices which stated that 42 states have state-level policy for those programs; regulation varies widely. There’s no data that indicates whether they are meeting program objectives. In Oregon, the integrated data system will provide data in the future.

Connie Green explained that an earlier study suggested that the only students that had to take remedial courses were those students who took a time out between high school and community college. Burk noted that KIDS III data (whether students who took these classes and how they compare with other students) will be availablein the future.

Agreement:

Create a small task force to investigate whether any changes must be made; Provosts are supportive and willing to help. Membership would include three representatives from high schools, three from community colleges, and three from the OUS.
Complete the data shared and move from draft to final forms.

Pathways from High School to College, Technical Training, and Career

Discussion

Scheduled for the next meeting.

UPDATE ON LEGISLATION RELEVANT TO THE UEE WORK PLAN

SB 342 (2005)

Elaine Yandle-Roth stated that they were finishing up General-Education outcomes and beginning to talk about revision of the AAOT. They will be meeting tomorrow for the first discussion. There are three models: minimum alignment with OTM, one that is somewhat integrated, one with separate courses. JBAC will be talking about what it wants to do, too.

SB 300 (2005)/SB 23(2007)

Noor noted that HB 2263 (2007) eliminated CIM/CAM in 2008-09, but high school requirements will be in place by then. SB 300 required some technical fixes, which SB 23 accomplishes.There were some disagreements regarding financial arrangements, but the interested parties have come to an agreement that high schools will negotiate with the colleges in good faith. The financial agreement may continue to be a sticking point.