Attendees: by 9rKupAq8

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 5

									                                   PSEO Subcommittee Meeting
                               Ohio Partnership for Continued Learning
                                         November 6, 2006

Attendees:
Colleen Grady, State Board of Education
Sue Westendorf, State Board of Education
Arlene Setzer, Ohio House
Jon Tafel, Ohio Board of Regents
Sarah Luchs, Ohio Department of Education
Carolyn Jurkowitz, Catholic Conference of Ohio
Ann Sheldon, Ohio Assoc. for Gifted Children
Tricia Renner, College Board
Anthony Landis, Ohio Board of Regents
Chris Dalheim, Lakeland Tech Prep Director
Lisa McHugh Cesari, Bowling Green State University
Julie Schaid, Partnership for Continued Learning

Opening Remarks:
Julie Schaid welcomed everyone to the meeting, asked everyone to introduce themselves, and
began with a summary of the Committee’s progress.

Summary of Progress to Date and Planned Timeline for Completion of Work:
Julie summarized that this subcommittee of the Partnership for Continued Learning has been
meeting for about one year. The committee was originally charged with making
recommendations to improve Ohio’s Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program, but
the charge was later expanded to include making policy recommendations related to
“opportunities for students to earn college credit during high school.” The first meetings focused
on discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the current PSEO program, as well as other
programs that provide early college credit opportunities. The group then spent several meetings
listening to presentations about innovative and unique programs that were being created
throughout the state. Toward the end of the summer, the group spent time developing a
document that summarized possible program name changes, overarching goal statements, and
recommended policy objectives.

Julie then moved on to a proposed timeline for completing the subcommittee’s charge of
developing policy recommendations:
Five main options for earning college credit have been identified: PSEO, Tech Prep,
International Baccalaureate (IB), Advance Placement (AP), and Early College High Schools.




11-06-06 Early College Credit Subcommittee Minutes                                               1
         At today’s meeting 11/6/06 – the subcommittee will hear data presentations on Tech
          Prep, PSEO and AP. The presenters have been asked to discuss: how many students
          currently participate in the program, how many credits students have earned, program
          costs, and strengths and weaknesses of the particular program.
         In December, the subcommittee will meet and hear data presentations for IB & Early
          College High Schools; and then begin a structured discussion of recommendations,
          including data systems, report card prototypes, and ways to encourage broader access.
         Sometime in December, a smaller group will meet to discuss specific funding
          recommendations for PSEO. (The results of this meeting will be brought back to the
          subcommittee).
         In January, the group will meet at least one time to continue refining
          recommendations. Also, because KnowlegeWorks is completing a comprehensive
          study of PSEO in Ohio (projected completion in January), the plan is to have the
          KnowledgeWorks presentation made to this subcommittee to be sure all the valuable
          information from the study is considered in the subcommittee’s recommendations.

                Topics for discussion at the January meetings should include:
                accountability/evaluation, program consistency, articulation, and funding.

         Most likely, a final meeting will be scheduled in February. The group should make
           sure final recommendations that also include consideration of a communications &
           outreach, as well as variety in delivery models.

Finally, before turning the meeting over to the first presenters, Julie led the group in a quick
review of the summary document, which had been emailed to group members, and subsequently
updated with any suggested revisions. She also shared a potential matrix for developing and
evaluating recommendations. The matrix is attached to these minutes.


Tech Prep Presentation:
Chris Dalheim, Tech Prep Director at Lakeland Community College led the group through a
PowerPoint presentation and referred the group to a supporting white paper document. (Anthony
Landis, Tech Prep liaison at the Board of Regents was also present to answer questions.)

The Tech Prep Directors in Ohio have formed a subcommittee to address concerns with dual
enrollment and have been doing research for about a year, including talking to experts in other
states. Chris shared charts that showed progress and growth in dual credit being earned through
Tech Prep (TP). In 2005, over 600 TP students had earned over 7,000 credits. Chris also showed
a table that provided average cost savings to students and their families based on estimated
tuition rates at various types of higher education institutions. Other tables presented showed
specific examples of Tech Prep students and consortia offering credit, but currently due to
challenges between K-12 and higher education data systems, comprehensive data is not
available. Of 23 Consortia, the presentation summarized data from eight Consortia.
Specific recommendations from the Tech Prep community, include:
      using earned, transcripted, letter grade credit




11-06-06 Early College Credit Subcommittee Minutes                                                 2
     addressing concerns about faculty creditials (high school faculty qualifications for
      colleges and career technical qualifications of college faculty)
     addressing college admission policies to grant dual credit to high school students outside
      of PSEO
     addressing the challenges of escrowed credit

The Subcommittee requested that at the next meeting, Tech Prep expand “table 3” to have as
   many Consortia reporting data as possible and include whether or not credit earned is
   transcripted with a letter grade. The group also requested to have some “cost” data from Tech
   Prep. What is the state and federal money spent to support Tech Prep? Are there any cases
   where there is a cost to the high school, college or students?


Advanced Placement Presentation:
Tricia Renner of College Board shared a PowerPoint data presentation about Advanced
Placement (AP). Highlights of the presentation include:
    - Currently there are 35 AP course offerings.
    - The only way AP knows how many “AP” students there are – is by exam scores – It is
        also important to note that test participation may vary by school: some students may be
        required to take the exams, other students may want to take exams but not have adequate
        funding. (There is funding support available, but not all students access it – there is a
        stigma connected to requesting financial support).
    - About 71% of AP scores are sent to in-state colleges.
    - In 2006, 424 Ohio public high schools offered AP English, 415 AP math. (There are
        about 873 public high schools in Ohio.)
    - Between 2003-2006, about 81-85% of the AP test takers were Caucasian, 5% African
        American, 1-2% Hispanic.
    - Funding – 2006 Ohio paid for 1597 students to take 2377 exams.
    - In 2006, 631 high schools, public and private, offered at least one AP exam (516 public,
        115 private.)
    - This year College Board is launching an AP Course Audit - all schools must begin to use
        the official AP course name.
    - When students take the PSAT there is a tool called AP Potential that helps districts
        predict a student’s potential success in AP courses.
    -           For example, based on 2005 PSAT exams and 2006 AP exams:
    -           English        7, 258 exams – 34, 134 PSAT showed potential
    -           Calculus AB 5,962 exams – 16, 625 PSAT showed potential
    - There are examples of AP courses offered via distance learning.
    - AP challenges:
    -           Exam costs to student $82
    -           Professional Development for teachers is not consistent
    -           Appropriate textbooks and materials being used?
    -           School policy variations on class size, grading, access to courses
    - Policy Recommendations:
    -           Schools offer an AP course in each of the four core content areas
    -           Provide money for professional development



11-06-06 Early College Credit Subcommittee Minutes                                                 3
   -        Address funding for exams
   -        Equity and access expanded in AP courses
   -        Set AP target participation rates?
   -        Consistent credit awarding policy between higher education institutions?
   -        Is AP credit earned transcripted as required credit or elective credit
   - Additional data requested for the December meeting:
   -        Ohio Private school data?
   -        What is the difference between a score of 3 and a score of 4?
   -        Socioeconomic data on AP test takers.
   -
PSEO:

Julie provided a brief PSEO summary due to illness of the person from KnowledgeWorks:
    - Separation of data systems make tracking of participation a challenge
    - The students who participate in PSEO are clustered in specific geographic areas.
    - Little data is available on the economic background of PSEO participants. However,
        ODE reported 5% of PSEO participants in 2005 were economically disadvantaged.
    - Estimates show about 11,000 students participate in PSEO – about 15% of all high school
        students.
    - 64% of PSEO students (8,163) are female
    - 35.4% are male (4,472)
    - 93.7% are Caucasian, 1.3% Hispanic, 2.7% Black, non-Hispanic
    - Densest concentrations of PSEO participation is in the northern part of the state.
    - Seniors make up the wide majority of student participating in PSEO.

Discussion:
        Private school students (non-public) need to be considered in policy
          recommendations – funding ran out for these students in just a few hours, no parity in
          amount of credits available for private school students – some get approved for 50+
          hours, other nonpublic students get turned away.
        08 schools need to be addressed – early college credits need to be available to as
          many students as possible.
        Need to find a framework or model for how the 5 options for early college credit
          work together.
        Other smaller partnerships exist, policy needs to consider these –
        Two big outcomes should be increased rigor and early college credit earned.
        Policies should be incorporated into districts strategic plans.
        Options need to be there for Career Technical students – skill attainment and
          academic acceleration.
        Need to create local incentives – structure policy recommendations to achieve
          outcomes – not focus on specific programs only.
        Incorporate distance learning options.
        Retain a percentage of financial support for local planning & support.




11-06-06 Early College Credit Subcommittee Minutes                                             4
Next Steps:
   Tentative next meeting date is 10:00 a.m. – noon on Wednesday, December 13th. Julie will
   arrange speakers on Early College High Schools and International Baccalaureate programs.

Attached:       Proposed matrix for evaluating recommendations.




11-06-06 Early College Credit Subcommittee Minutes                                            5

								
To top