Meeting Notes, Assessment for College Readiness (ACR) Committee
Wednesday , June 4, 2003
Harold E. Anderson Entrepreneurial Center
St. Cloud State University
Attending: Tim Skaja, Mary Ann Harris, Jay Bock, Ed Sapinski, Patrick Lair, Kathie Montognese, Yemi Onibokun, Ann Vidovic, Beth Adams, David Dailey, Baorong Li, Ron Anderson, Warren Sandmann, Janet Haak Aarness, Denise Chambers, Dean Dalen, Mary Kuldanek, Sandy Johnson, Bev Schmidtbauer, Kat Wesley, Lisa Schikling, Marilyn Leah, Barbara Oertel, Craig Schoenecker, Susan Carter, Cyndy Crist
Welcome and Introductions. Crist asked attendees to introduce themselves and distributed the agenda and notes from the last meeting.
Review and Discussion, ACR Committee Assessment Survey. Susan Carter provided the committee with copies of reports on the recent assessment survey and reviewed key findings. Committee members commented that the data is very useful and will assist both campus assessment efforts and the work of this committee. It was also noted that regional testing options need to be addressed at a system level.
Review and Discussion, Proposed Revisions, Policy 3.3 Assessment for College Readiness. Crist distributed a new draft of proposed revisions of Policy 3.3 that reflected discussions at the April committee meeting and with working group chairs. Several wording changes were made in order to use terms consistently throughout the policy.
There was significant discussion about the shortened “Purpose” section of the policy, including questions about purposes of the policy in terms of addressing assessment philosophy, process, procedure, and/or approach. There was also a great deal of discussion about whether and/or to what extent the policy should explicitly address two-year and four-year institutions separately.
Review and Discussion, Proposed Procedure 3.3.1 Assessment for College Readiness. Crist distributed a new draft of proposed Procedure 3.3.1 based on discussions at the April committee meeting and with working group chairs. The committee agreed to several changes, including a separation of Part 1 Subpart B into two subparts; revisions of the categories of exemptions in Part 1, Subpart C (to become Subpart D); significant revisions in Part 2; and deletion in its entirety of Part 3.
Discussion continued about whether or how to address two-year and four-year institutions separately. An informal straw vote revealed that a small majority favors the use of a single assessment battery and a large majority supports addressing two-year and four-year institutions separately in a way that reflects the distinctiveness of institutional missions. The committee reaffirmed its commitment to the overarching goal of making student needs the highest priority, ensuring that they only have to be tested once for placement except in unusual circumstances.
Crist was requested to make the changes discussed by the committee and to talk to ACT about how ACT subscores might appropriately be used to make placement decisions. The committee also highlighted placement cut scores as a topic needing to be addressed at the next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned shortly before 3:00 p.m.