STEM Advisory Committee Meeting

October 4, 2011

Meeting Notes

DRAFT until Approved

Members Present:

ODE: Stacie Ankrum, Cheryl Kleckner, Tom Thompson and Carla Wade.

Advisory Group Members: Trish Conlon-Hakola, Chemeketa-MWEC; Pat Burk and Aubry Clark, PSU-Metro Regional Center;Kelly Kuntz, Beaverton SD; Nancy Lapotin, PPS; Cheryl Law, Saturday Academy-OSU; Ruth McDonald, Lincoln City SD; Linda Rhine, High Desert Museum; Adel Schepige, WOU-Proj. WET; and Don Wolff, WESD.

Welcome & Introductions

  • Carla opened the meeting, and provided an overview of the agenda. Committee members present introduced themselves, and the work they do within their agencies.
  • Carla provided an overview of the Agenda and the Draft State Initiative to go out for public review. She provided clarity on the purpose of this group as opposed to other groups working with technology for the state.

Overview of Current Regional STEM Activities:

  • Eastern OR: Tom provided some insight into what is occurring in eastern Oregon with STEM. They have a lot of very small, rural schools interested in developing (writing proposals) and looking at different ways to use science, technology and math (vocational educational opportunities). The difficulty is limited to the number of teachers. They want to offer credit at the high school level, etc. Karen Patton at Intermountain ESD and Don Rainlove at the university have been working together to assist this area.

However, Pat spoke about his observation while in Eastern Oregon. He saw adisconnect between the community, the districts, community college and other agencies (e.g., Forest Services). These partnerships need to be developed. It was clear that the work by kids in forest was only done “seasonally.” Then the kinds were laid off. School and social service providers have not had a community conversation about the ability to tap into community opportunities & resources (e.g., the role of the forest in community work with the kids) to make educational connections. Carla said their frustration has been about the lack of attention to issues they face by the state due to their lack of population limiting input in state decision making.

  • Southern OR: Carla and Tryna will be going to SOU to work on the Southern Oregon Regional STEM utilizing local business, Parks and Recreation and further connect and Metcalf.

  • Northwest OR: Aubry Clark spoke about the work of the Portland Metro Regional STEMCenter. There’s a lot of competition. Bill Becker attended a multi-state meeting on STEM. There is a lot of National work going on and they want to ensure Oregon is represented. Aubry indicated the need for a small 8-10 member workgroup/team to work on STEM issues.
  • Central OR: Linda Rhine spoke about the work happening in Bend at the High Desert Museum and their efforts to move their “Fired Up” program for 4th and 5th grade students in Bend. The program provides hands-on opportunities to kids in the forest and introduced some of the work they are doing at Evergreen and Intel as partners as they workwith North MarionCounty High Schools (about 40). Last year’sfocus was on digital electronics; this year’s focus is on aerospace engineering and digital electronic. They use laptops to work through literacy withLiteracy and Common Core Standards.
  • Coast: Ruth McDonald spoke about the work in the coastal region with Noah in Newport, the Marine Aquarium and Science Centerand the work in Coos Bay that includesa focus on research with an observation system going on off the coast that spans up and down the coast but is centered in Newport. They have also been doing work with Bill Hunchmaker at OMSI.
  • Mid Willamette – A Consortium (MWAC): Tom provided an overview. “Project Lead the Way” was developed in New York about 20 years ago that is heavy on design with lots of science and math embedded. Over 4000 students have participated in the program.
  • Carla identified the Drupal web site and resources available at to show what communication would look like. Nancy said she has used the site frequently, especially the professional development techniques and strategies and that they have been the best she’s seen.
  • Pat asked that this STEM Meeting help to ensure that information released is not “accidental.”

Oregon STEM Initiative Draft Specifics (Tom Thompson):

  • Some of the isolated initiatives started throughout the state happen when grant funding is available but seem to disappear when the funding ends. There needs to be some common ground on what we believe about STEM education.

Note: This document is not meant to go out and “change the world” but rather a catalyst to change the world. Therefore, this is more about the thinking of STEM education.

  • Presentation points included:
  • Provides a Framework that includes a description and definition.
  • Instead of thinking of the 4 separate areas of study (Science, Math, technology, and engineering), focuses on teaching and learning to ensure learning happens beyond the classroom and throughout students’ lives, brings things to real life experience, and is cross-cutting requiring critical thinking rather than a list of content.

  • Common goals include:
  • Preparation for postsecondary education.
  • There needs to be some energy to also focus on other careers.
  • The work with citizenship to make good decisions.
  • Focal Points for Opportunities
  • Identify what points we need to focus on in order to create some sort of change.
  • We need coherent standards—but not necessarily happening the same time and way everywhere.
  • Effective Instruction that doesn’t just mean “the teacher” but all areas of life working together to provide STEM opportunities.
  • Allow for interconnectedness to ensure kids have connection on what they are learning to what they know and how it fits in the real world.
  • Teacher development on STEM.
  • Access to research strategies tools and technologies.
  • Effective learning environments to allow students to engage in their learning and that encourage problem solving and critical thinking.
  • Coherent content standards and Policies within and across grades to provide interconnections.
  • Policies don’t prohibit progress.
  • Effective Leadership (not just principals, but also teachers and community leaders to include a variety of places).
  • Evaluation and Research—Know and find out what works, what doesn’t work as well as communication using common language and metrics.
  • A mechanism for shared work to share opportunities effectively throughout the state.
  • Local/regional flexibility to ensure work doesn’t get dismissed because it doesn’t fit exactly in “our plan.”
  • ODE has been working with Instructional Core. If it doesn’t have an impact on the learner then it has no value. Therefore, emphasis on identification of what is necessary to help a student learn (impact). Tom provided the graphic in the STEM Initiative Draft document clarifying the work of the instructional Core related to STEM.
  • The conversation today is the “how do we do it” to ensure it doesn’t become a document on a shelf that we point to when applying for grants! In regions, like the Metro area, we have the pieces, but we want to come up with a way to network with people (Collective Impact Partnership) to address this. With no shared system to measure impact, it’s hard to identify and talk about impact using common measures.
  • Tom provided a handout “Collective Impact” that talks about how to make the change happen.

  • Carla identified the Oregon Ed Tech Cadre (OETC) work that eliminates some of the barriers that slow things down at the state level. People come together to talk about vital interests, develop lesson plans and professional development, communicate what front runners look like in the districts, and reinforce activities, sharing and learning across the state.
  • Two things to come away with today:
  • Agree on what STEM is (not wordsmithing).
  • How do we move it forward rapidly?
  • Aubry spoke more about multi-state networking, the huge support by business and industry like Batel. The collaborative efforts connecting different states in conversation and funding to identify technology efforts around the country, and a common metrics.
  • Aubry provided the need to stay in line with the reforms the state is going through, but that it’s important to stick with the STEM work while changes continue to occur. Carla added the need to connect with the Gov’s office to ensure we don’t work for not. Pat added that the Gov’s office can’t wait too long and identified the expectations are for the state. Almost all grants seem to have to go through the Gov’s office that has everyone competing for grant dollars. The Department needs to have a goal of impressing upon the Governor that we have a “state-wide vision” with an overall statewide goal, but allowflexibility. Someone needs to build the infrastructure to make this happen. Pat said that this type of communication (Tom’s presentation) could help with this.
  • We need to take what we learn about rural strategies and use those strategies across the state (e.g., the work with wave and ocean technology initiatives on the coast connecting with wind technologies in the East).

More Regional discussions:

  • Carla and Tom provided some background on Regional work done to improve STEM education with a schoolwide perspective and how to identify a network of STEM Centers.
  • The difference between “a regional area” vs. “a hub” vs. “a community,” etc., to ensure that the network is a consistent body of partners.
  • Discussion on what number of regions should be identified (6-8 statewide and/or more within existing boundaries and beyond boundaries to share communications and resources.
  • Some potential regions that could be identified and what could make that region a STEM Regional Center.
  • Continued discussion around how to Identify and group regions of existing regional STEM communities. There were concernsabout how to have a common metric with all the varying resources throughout the state and that it should connect k-12 with higher education.

  • Possible regions:
  • Coast
  • North
  • South
  • Southern Oregon
  • Mid Willamette
  • Lane Co.
  • Metro
  • North Eastern
  • South Central/Eastern
  • Bend/Redmond
  • Hood River/The Dalles
  • Example:
  • Coastal-North Coast.
  • Post Secondary—
  • OCCC
  • OSU
  • NOAA
  • Hatfield
  • Lincoln County School District (MOUs Exist)
  • USFW
  • Oregon State Parks (Coast)
  • ODFW
  • BLM
  • Oregon Coast Aquarium
  • Aqua Marine Power
  • Fisheries

Further discussion and comments around how to bring all resources together.

  • A common vision for all these entities to be working within.
  • Connect with other initiatives like common core.
  • Ensure it’s really a partnership—that what the school wants is not the only driver, but also what the college and community want to provide, “What’s in it for themto meet all needs?”

Regional MOU—

  • Buy in to Collective Impact
  • Connection to HS Diploma (Requirements and/or Statewide Initiatives)
  • Address Mutual Needs
  • Complementing Other Aspects of Education
  • Focus on School-wide Change
  • Theme

Collaboration—

  • Easy Access
  • Chunking it all together has somewhat dummied down the actual content. We need to identify what part of the pie satisfies the requirements for quality education. The common standards will identify the content that has to be included.
  • Easy Access--has to be “non-time-consuming” to become members with a streamlined process, or potential partners will become turned off.
  • (A struggle that has occurred in the Metro Region is whole school reform rather than subject-specific issues. Our way through it has been to focus on social capitol “a theory of change”(not changing individual teachers).Example:
  • How do buildings use data?
  • How do teachers work with each other (rather than in isolation)?
  • Identify the role of the art teacher or science teacher.
  • Pat spoke of a good article he came across that identifies the need to invest in “professional relationships” rather than only individual professional development.
  • Tom identified how grants have created much of the criteria for what activities are done. Further discussion around how this has occurred around the state over lunch.

Small Group Activity:

Participants broke into small groups of 2-4 to discuss the variety of STEM Center Possibilities, to listSTEM efforts known to be occurring in the state, to identify necessaryelements of a regional STEMcenter, and possible partners.

Group 1: Mid-Willamette Region (Manufacturing)

  • Com. College: Chemeketa Com. College
  • Higher Ed: WOU (new Dean of Grad School of Ed.), Willamette U., George Fox, Corbin College, and Linfield College.
  • Dists/ESD: WESD, Salem-Keizer SD, McMinnville SD, and other Polk, Yamhill and Marion county districts.
  • Private Schools:
  • Business Partners: Evergreen Space Museum, ADEC, Cascade Steel, local Wineries (viticulture), Garmin Job Growers, McMinnville’s Economic Development Group, Telecomm. Providers (Wireless: Clear, SEDCOR Minct)
  • Public Utilities (PGE, NW Natural Gas)
  • Gilbert Discovery Museum, Marion Co. Museum, Powerline, Hallie Ford-Docents
  • State/Federal agencies = Forest Services, ODFW


Group 2: Mid-Willamette (Hwy 22)

  • OSU (SMED) Higher Education
  • Dallas
  • Lebanon,
  • Sweet Home
  • Alsea
  • Monroe
  • LBC (Higher Ed) – Dallas/Monmouth, Salem-Keizer, Woodburn, Albany, Willamina, Fall City, Perrydale, Amity, Sheridan w/Chemeketa Com. College
  • Business: Museums (Evergreen, Gilbert House), Smaller Businesses
  • Gov't Agencies: Federal, State & Local
  • Other Special Interests: Grand Ronde, Watershed Districts.

Group 3: Mid-Willamette *More than 1

  • OSU (SMED) Higher EducationBusiness:
  • DallasUniv. Connections? (i.e., MBI, ONAMI)
  • Lebanon,
  • Sweet HomeNeed More
  • AlseaGene Tools??
  • Monroe
  • LBC (Higher Ed), Dallas(Albany)
  • (Philomath) Corvallis

NewportHwy 34*LBCC*Lebanon*Sweet Home

*OSU Monroe

Discussion Points:

  • It was found that there was some cross over from one to the other—colleges (e.g., OSU connects with Lebanon and Sweet Home, but Albany connects with WOU).
  • Possible Themes and focus for the areas were discussed as well as the growing industry.
  • There is the challenge in areas like Sweet Home, Lebanon, and Dallas where the student population is high Latino and the concern is that “We’ll educate the students, they they’ll leave.”
  • We are in a crisis and sputnik event that is with the parents that needs to be addressed.

Group 4: Metro Area

Metro Area STEM Center / @BPS:

TOSAs

I3 / PPS
BSD
HSD

Oregon CityIntel

Forest GroveMcKinstry

ParkroseJP Morgan Chase

OMSI / Vernier
NWSES / Carnegie
NOYSE / Paul LeMahiem
C2M-C2S / ODE
LSAMP
TryonCreek / 3.5 FTE Total
All Co-assigned to
School districts & University
Zoo

*STEM Center Graphic

Discussion points:

  • They found that the university goals were not connected in the districts’ strategic goals.
  • The idea would be a central place for the elem. Middle and high schools for STEM. (e.g., Sustainable gardening that includes biology, physics, math, technology, etc.)
  • The university actually assists funding for college ready efforts.
  • We’ve added 3 career tracks at the university partners that include faculty positions required to participate in STEM partnership.
  • Again, grant opportunities and funding can clearly limit what activities are done.
  • Places like OMSI, Zoo, and others that are located in this region, but can serve other regions as well.
  • We are all being held accountable for college readiness—a theme that would drive key decisions.
  • Intel pays tuition at a full ride at PSU for 25 engineering students from Vietnam for manufacturing fabrications programs. The question could there be a couple of kids in Oregon that would value going to Vietnam to experience fabrications that could bring back their experience to us in Oregon.
  • What we see developing in what the back-bone function is providing the funding for the STEM efforts of the group.
  • The center is a “physical space” Beaverton put up space to house the STEM Center as part of their partnership. There is value in providing physical space and internet connection.

Leveraging Resources (Grant Opportunities):

  • Action: Add page numbers to the Stem Initiative document
  • Carla developed a graphic (insert at end) that provides a visual of how the.
  • It would be recommended to have an independent Advisory Committee that would manage the individual regions and ask questions. Not necessarily educators (act like a Board) and keep accountability to what was said would be done. The advisory committee that really engages community partners. Oregon Business council that does the statewide career pathways and emerging industries).
  • The Backbone organization would make it happen and process all the data that comes in. this “backbone” ensures that things are connected throughout all the regions, provides evaluation services, communications center that links the regions and what they’ve done through resources and convening an annual meeting (do the logistics), provide technical support, etc. Advocacy will be an important part to show what’s being done.
  • Funding. In Washington, business and industry moved to help promote the identified STEM efforts, however, there are strengths and weaknesses in it.
  • There were some political issues that com up in supporting. Having a publicly funding agency can be an at-risk financially due to the rise and fall of public funds. Carla brought the ODE to be a good catalyst to bring people together, getting conversation going, etc.

Next Steps:

  • Survey Questions:
  • Where do you see STEM centers of activity?
  • Where do you see the region extending to?
  • Note: Later—who is missing
  • Does anything like this exist in your region?
  • Find out what has happened in other states with large businesses like Intel (Arizona, Colorado)? There has been a statewide initiative and policies (innovate and educate) where they know the work in Oregon waiting to see what Oregon comes up with.
  • Anyone who thinks of anything between now and Friday, send your ideas to ___.
  • Funding is an issue, as there are no STEM funds—no check coming from the Governor!
  • We look at the funds that we have, funds not used that might be used within the guidelines of the grant funds, Title IV-B has money that will go back to the federal govt. if not spent, might have restrictions, but we could provide them with some resources to use with their current grant to begin to explore for “afterschool STEM” work and connections. Find out what is happening and what can happen.
  • The Math Science Partnership may be able to assist in providing 2-4 competitive grants that meet the criteria (e.g., include a community partner), that come close to the STEM definition and has a project that impacts students, but starts efforts that could become future Regional STEM Center. Look at more regional. Unsure who that RFP would go out to (Carla thinks everyone).
  • There are other funding sources through 21st CLC.

Question: How would this funding work with other funding sources. Not clear yet.