State Board of Education August 23-25, 2006- Retreat
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
255 Capitol St. NE, Salem, OR 97310
MINUTES OF STATE BOARD RETREAT – Viticulture Center, Salem
August 23, 2006
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENTJerry Berger, Chair / Duncan Wyse, Vice Chair / Brenda Frank, 2nd Vice Chair
Artemio Paz, Jr. / Steve Bogart / Nikki Squire
BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED
ADVISORS PRESENT
Doug Dougherty / Joe Johnson / Roger Will
STAFF PRESENT
Jan McComb, Board Officer / Diane Roth, Executive Assistant / Paula Merritt, Executive Support Specialist
Susan Castillo, Superintendent / Cam Preus-Braly, CCWD
AGENDA PRESENTERS
Salam Noor, ODE / Chris Mazzeo, City University, New York / Robert Mercer, Oregon University System
Connie Green, Facilitator / Vickie Willis, Facilitator / James Sager, Governor’s Office
Mimi Madura, CCWD / Tim Nesbitt, State Board of Higher Education / Nan Poppe, Portland Community College
Nancy Goldschmidt, AAWG / Russlyn Ali, Ed Trust West / Christine Tell, Achieve, Inc.
PRELIMINARY BUSINESS
Tape 1A
Call to order and introductions
Chair Jerry Berger called the meeting to order at 1:20 p.m. and reviewed the agenda and subject matter.
Improving Transitions in the Education Enterprise
Connie Green and Vickie Willis, meeting facilitators, gave overview of the meeting today.
Chair Berger introduced Commissioner Cam Preus-Braly.
Preus-Braly stated that today will set the stage for tomorrow’s diploma discussion. The key is making sure that all Oregon students are ready for their next steps. What does “readiness” mean? What level of preparation is needed to accomplish this goal? Where is the hand-off? Is it seamless? Does it go smoothly? Introduces Chris Mazzeo.
Chris Mazzeo, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Focus is on secondary reform, access, adult literacy and workforce development; and equity.
Context of Measuring Up. It attempts to compare state-to-state on preparation, participation, completion, affordability, benefits to state and student learning. A major problem is the measurement of learning in higher education, e.g., recent report from USED on higher education outcomes.
Measuring Up also focuses on whether the state meets the critical goals. It assumes the goals are important and should be measured. It is not an institutional evaluation.
Measuring Up provides an opportunity to see change over time. Oregon has seen both positive and negative changes. Measuring Up Report Summary (Exhibit A) http://measuringup.highereducation.org/survey.cfm_
(See also facilitator notes Exhibit H).
How is Oregon doing? Nationally, Oregon is in the average or slightly below average. What is more surprising is that regionally Oregon does less well than other western states. There are no areas where the state is stellar and there are some areas where the state needs to improve.
Strengths:
· Retention at public 4-year institutions is good
· 6-year BA attainment ranks high.
· Population growing in educational attainment, i.e., brain attraction. Unclear what the role of the public institutions is in this regard.
· Up tick in low income students enrolling in college.
Weaknesses:
· Preparation: Math is a challenge. Levels of higher level course taking are low in Oregon. Fewer college level courses. Level of AP and dual credit levels are lower. These are building-blocks.
· Drop in 9th graders enrolling in college after 4 years. Students are not enrolling right after high school. Students who do not enroll right after high school have much lower success rates in completing college.
· Among worse in the US on affordability measures: high tuition rates and a low level of investment in need-based aid. Many states match or exceed federal investment. Oregon does not do this. In addition, tuition is high.
· Student completion rates in transition from community colleges to four-year institutions is falling. (43%)
Context:
Measuring Up focuses on the public higher education system. In Oregon, almost all students are in public education and over half are in community colleges. The share of jobs that will require higher education is increasing. Percentage of jobs requiring a BA and jobs requiring some college is going up. Minimum high school employment is continuing to decline.
Key: Set goals. Figure out what is important and how we want to improve. Set a benchmark for measuring progress. Start with clear public policy goals. Other states examples.
Six broad goals:
· Improving student preparation for college.
· Increasing the percentage of students who enroll directly in college from high school; increases persistence and completion.
· Increase the percentage of students enrolling full-time. Helps completion.
· Increase retention rates, particularly in community colleges.
· Increase success rates for students enrolled in developmental classes.
· Work on closing the achievement gap.
· Provide assistance to low-income, working adult. Career Pathways to Advancement program in Oregon.
In response to a question, Mazzeo responds that the characteristics of successful states include:
· Creating college-level default curriculum. Non-college bound should require parent permission. States doing this have made progress.
· Fostering more collaboration around alignment, curriculum in secondary school and college and community colleges.
· Aligning placement exams, more centralized models, e.g. centralized placement exams, common cut scores, data on how well students are doing.
Connie Green noted that much of the dual credit that occurs in Oregon is not counted in national data because Oregon lacks a state policy on the issue.
In response to a question about other states that use college entry requirements as high school exit requirements, Christine Tell stated that passage of state exams does not represent college readiness academic levels; high school content is not college level. Indiana has a curriculum known as the Core 40 that is required for admission, with a financial award attached. Core 40 was voluntary and next year becomes required curriculum.
Budget Policy
James Sager, Governor’s Office, stated that the Governor has asked the Board to look out to 2025, and identify the goals we want 18 years from now, to allow time to measure the state’s progress toward those goals. He explained that two years ago the Governor set out seven priorities for the state. Now we are at the point that we are trying to create an understanding and break down silos to see how all align. We want to show the results and the outcomes we can expect to the Legislature next session.
The Governor is pleased that the focus of both boards is preparing students for college, work, and citizenship for all students. Enterprise thinking is not trying to take from one sector and give to another. (See facilitator notes Exhibit H).
K-12 Education Plan and Profile
Salam Noor, ODE, explained that the board adopted the education plan and profile for the 2006/07 school year and career learning and experiences and this was to personalize education and make the high school experience meaningful. (Exhibit B) PK-12 Education Plan and Profile)
This was adopted in 2002, to begin in the 2006/07 school year. The goal is to have a plan in place for each student’s goals. Worked with a variety of partners around the state. The plan was not to be an end in itself; and it was to involve parents and teachers. As a result to these projects, it is leading to a model throughout the state.
Hindrances
· Resources are needed for adults to work together
· Lack of electronic systems for immediate access
· Collective bargaining and workload issues: asking people to do more
· Student-counselor ratio is too high: 1:500
· Access of data by higher education Is cumbersome.
· Lack of resources to support the work at local level and lower grades
But we are seeing more customization and personalization.
Noor explained that the board will need to review the implementation of the Plan and Profile for consistency across the state if we want a single document. We are unsure if we do this at a state level or local level. The board will need to discuss (see facilitator notes Exhibit H)
Tape 2 A
Pathways to Advancement
Mimi Maduro, Columbia Gorge Community College, reviewed the Pathways to Advancement program (Exhibit C). (See also facilitator notes Exhibit H)
What’s working:
· Leadership and a growing cadre of champions
· Joint resolution by the presidents to support it
· Continuation of support from the Governor’s office
· The Workforce Investment Board is pulling its weight.
· Champions in the legislature with workforce development and economic development.
Communication plan rolling out in November for community colleges to communicate what they are doing. Nan Poppe (PCC) and CCWD are working on a joint paper on policy paper to provide common definitions and a policy framework for more standardized conversation about system integration.
Considerable work has been taking place across workforce development efforts, data elements and sharing information. We need more staff and resources to work on data systems to bring the factors together. Washington State has been making good progress.
Resource development: Perkins dollars are in place. Working on an earmark for workforce development. Investments from the state and federal incentives grants.
Resource development team working on RFPs and other plans to improve funding for pathway development. We have also developed Policy Option Packages for career pathways that cut across all sectors as they impact career pathway definitions. Also working on task forces in wide variety of career pathways and system integration across sectors.
What is needed?
Program approval process needs to be improved. Streamline the process for Workforce Investment Act funding. Workforce Investment Act credentials need to be available to adult learners. Asset and skill placement tests in the high school in order to prepare students and inform their planning for community colleges.
Mapping out pathways for transition to the next step. Delineate the courses, assessments, experiences that contribute to the next-step planning of students. What are the opportunities for me to explore opportunities and courses that would contribute to the plan.
Systematic Guidance and Counseling Plan: The plan becomes the mechanism that gauges the student’s interests and guides the types of experiences they should have. There needs to be more congruence between the plan and profile and the community colleges.
Oregon Transfer Module
Robert Mercer, Oregon University System, reviewed the Oregon Transfer Module (OTM) (Exhibit D). OTM represents agreement on transferability from community colleges to OUS institutions. It works specifically with general education requirements. There is another level of students who have an idea of where they are and where they want to go. These students can integrate major specifics with general education courses. The OTM also allows for more cross-institutional transferability of coursework.
Resources include the need for good advising, clarifying needs and requirements. Two-year modules are the AAOT. Problems include linking AAOT and OTM and major requirements – transferability issues are complex.
Hindrances: We may need some form of cross-institutional marketing of the option. We do not always do well with the undeclared student. This could be a tool to assist the students. The OTM all fit across the liberal arts core.
Resources: for it to be a successful tool, there needs to be good advising. Change the quality of advising by clarifying needs and requirements. Advising focuses on the personal connections. Two-year modules are the AAOT.
Questions: Is there a problem in linking AAOT and OTM and major requirements? Yes, especially if you change your mind about major. They can find the transferability issues too complex.
Tape 2B f
Access and Affordability
Tim Nesbitt, Co-Chair, Nan Poppe, Co-Chair, Nancy Goldschmidt, Staff, Access and Affordability Working Group (AAWG) of the State Board of Higher Education, described the Governor’s proposed Shared Responsibility model (Exhibit E). (See facilitator notes Exhibit H).
The Governor is concerned about affordability for all Oregonians who are interested in attending. Builds upon the existing Oregon Opportunity Grant program. Affordability and participation are connected. The Governor is concerned and helped with a major increase in the Oregon Opportunity Grant program. Legislators want to know when we will be done. Chasing the ranks on Measuring Up is not the best measure.
The data appear to indicate that it is no longer possible to link effort to completion. The costs are simply too high. Estimates are that a student can earn $4700 a year in summer and 10 hours a week during the year and borrow $3000. The Oregon Opportunity Grant proposal could be modified to provide a possibility for affordability over a four-year process.
Problem: Financing is limiting participation in the higher education system, made worse by changing demographics. We need to replace workers. Pipeline: 100 9th graders produce only 15 college graduates.
No longer possible to work your way through college. The hours to be worked at minimum wage in order to pay for college is now beyond the reach of students. Pell grants have not been increased. The state grant came in on top and the remainder was covered by family contributions.
Shared Responsibility principles
· Fairness: Everyone invest something
· Equity: proportionate burden
· Choice: 2 and 4 year
· Efficiency:state is the last partner
Four Partners
· Student share: work, loans, savings, scholarships
· Household share: income and assets
· Federal share: Pell grant, tax credits
· State share: Fill the gap
Cost of attendance: books and supplies, computers, living expenses.
Student Effort Counts
· Personal savings
· Reasonable work effort
· Take out loans
· Earn Scholarships
State share: As needed, the state comes in as the last partner to make college truly affordable for all Oregonians. Pell grant unavailable at about $30,000/yr family income. Existing grant program is available to full and part-time students. More funding is available to part-time students. We need help publicizing this. Student share is $13/day in the community colleges and $21/day in the four-year institutions.
Tape 3A
Questions from the Board:
· Further work on plan and profile?
· Policy work on dual credit?
· Require an option on AP and IB?
· Do we want to look at completion rates at the community colleges?
· What is underway and what do we need for the next push?