Present at the table: Gretchen Schuette, Dave McDonald, John Miller (EOU), Mary Kay (PSU), Dave Woodall (OIT), Earl Potter (SOU), Lorraine Davis (UO), Matha Pitts (AVP UO), Frances Dyke, Gary Dixkon WOU, Kristinia Frankenberger (WOU), Rachael Pilliod, Geri Richmond. (Many more in the audience). See also Docket items related to MBF">.

Goldschmidt has resigned as state board president.

Schuette: Leadership for area of academics and work of MBF. As work on reorganizing chancellor's office has occurred, many questions have been directed to members of committee. Letter from Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Question about articulation committee. We will sustain effort to make sure more students get quality education. Continue to work on issues that make things better for students across the state.

Legislative concepts to courses where many might think should be the words outcomes. Word choice was ot made to create friction. JBAC has been working for some time and this group has been working with JBAC. Have both short term and long term results. Next steps in that whole arena. Use campus resources to help us move forward in that arena.

Schuette: Docket piece in legislative concepts - place holders - still have a lot of work to do - would be work that gets done. That would be the substance of this meeting to characterize what has been accomplished and to get thoughts about diverse arenas. Look forward to subsequent meeting on June 11.

McDonald. Issue of diversity has come up. Need to make much more explicitly that all initiatives explore this much more upfront. Need to be more inclusive of all populations in the state. Quick FYI have constructed good web sites for all the working groups - all that stuff is posted there.

Approval in concepts. Have updates around. Campus data requests regarding capacity and course demands. Focus on course availability's. Some work has been done in this arena - use online delivery to create greater opportunities for people across the state. Characterize a draft idea of next steps. Frances Dyke - that group be covered by people from various campuses. Craft message out to the campuses. How measure ability to answer some of the questions.

PSU already looked at determining bottle necks and high demand and over enrolled courses. And how worked at how to solve those. UO does that in CAS because gen ed requirements tracks. Factor summer session courses on courses that have not been met during year. Monitors that in CAS very closely. Some of the information there could be very helpful. A student has opportunity and desire and appropriately can take courses where space available. Provide information but don't get into one size fits all. GS come back to methodology. We do that at Chemekta to determine summer term. Do something in the near term. As longer term outcome - ways appropriate - have shared methodology to look at course availability across the whole system. If we could characterize for our publics - we are working on how to address course availability. Get group together to decide the methodology first. Involve CC - those students are part of the bottleneck.

Inventory of on line courses and next steps. Some challenge in collecting a comprehensive listing. Think about that delivery system from a statewide perspective.

Student system connections and benefits. That is about discussions we have had about a P-20 data system tracking students and assisting them - data about accomplishments and opportunities. Working on this on several fronts - what are we really talking about. How do we connect 3 very different data systems in the state. K-12 has robust system. CC have a system that has a number of key variables. OUS has a data system. Campuses have robust level and smaller shared system. Thought is how to connect those so student who is moving from one sector to another can do this in an informed manner - if they are going to shop around for institutions. And dual enrollment frameworks - getting student data transfered back and forth as students take courses interchangeably. Slows down degree audits. Attempt to bridge some of these problems. This can be foundation - or is it a sinkhole for resources we don't have. This is critical work in some of the ways we could support enrollment and successful pathways for students. Characterize some of the benefits. Martha Pitts. Need mention of course articulation and degree audit systems. This is key concept in other legislative items. Electronic exchange of data could be helpful - but students have concerns about how data transfer is authorized. It is course articulation and degree audit - how do courses transfer and count toward degree and major requirements. GS. We should be leading with that benefit to having this kind of a system. None of us have advising and counseling that we would like to have to support students in choosing their pathways - if could get to system that students could use. Meeting of student transfer committee last week was in agreement that this was an important issue. Can national data that exists transfer into this system? Bringing data across from national data? Built on EDI protocol that allows for intra data? Could have campuses front the cost of this. Have to struggle with what is value added relative to other things.

Henry Lorenzo. Submitted a number of questions. Have had a background in data progressing many years ago. My concern in this area. Budget process for this is say 4,000,000. If given that for additional faculty which would you choose? Those are the tough questions. Need to identify what is the problem we are attempting to solve with this system. Suppose is in place. What benefits will we have. Struggle with. Is this what is preventing us from getting through in 4 rather than 6 students. Tough questions - what is the specific problem we are trying to get to with this system. Letting you know my own particular thoughts. LD. I am not convinced that students that take more credits. I don't think is data system. Some of life instances and indecision get in the way. I don't think it is the lack of data or an articulated data system. I think it is a way of how it is coordinated and what the individual students issues are. PSU. Some of it is financial. HL. Appreciate it has bee provided.

I think you are doing it the right - think about what the important questions are. Ohio decided wanted every bit of information on every student K-12. It is 10 years later. Not a single significant question they have answered with data collected. But did develop articulation agreements. Lot of people doesn't make sense to get associate degree. Students still end up taking 210 when need 180 to finish. So develop document talking about pre major modules. So students had pretty good idea of what sorts of courses. Think have pre major modules and NOW they need to track students to see if what they have is working. Well articulated data students are most effect when can be used to see if what intuitively makes sense are in fact working. Only way can do that is to track data. But comprehensive data warehouse needs to be done in conjunction with other things. This is something we need to do. Need to get modules to institute reaudit. Some of things on list could make a larger bang for buck. Take other steps. Buy same sorts of systems. Can't talk to each other now. Get pointed toward fully integrated data sets as do other things first.

Given high level of interest in governor's office and in K-12 (this is there #1 priority and in governor's staff is in top 5) will put this in context as being part of a larger process. We can continue to be effective players and get pointed in right direction without huge infusion of resources. Work of prototype has been invisible to a lot of us - collect information.

Priorities. As we move ahead in the legislative place holders. Might say which come first - which phase in. Keep 4-5 things moving ahead.

One is to help students right now. And another is to create the strongest platform for the future. GR think about when reorganizing IT and other structures. Ans needs to be part of consideration. How much of work needs to be done centrally and how much needs to be done institutionally. Individuality will have to be taken into account. GS We are not talking about a whole new system. We are talking about linkage. We need to express what we want to do - what are next steps - tradeoffs about putting resources there. LGD. Keep in mind what is already there and what is already in place. Not start from scratch. What do you want this for. Why are you doing that.

You can spend tens of million of dollars and not get much. Possible to do it much differently and for much less. GS Should be there a working group or should there be a prototype. Francis Dyke. Our IT director has retired and we are looking for replacement. Asking folks who have applied what key issues are. This has not risen to top of list. Have campus based task forces is way to go.

We have consensus that degree audit and course articulation is important. Cautious about next steps. Have prototype to look at. Will get all Universities to look at this. Prototype Chemeketa and OSU are working on program. Hope if we can find pathways that work, we can try to see if that is scalable and make it available to others.

Key part of OSU development is that have partnerships with many other institutions.

Dual enrollment framework. Get to something we can look at hard.

College opportunities for high school students. Map what exists. Sheet summarizes all public high schools in the state giving AP, College Now (community college efforts) and IB. This is some old date - will be fewer. Includes any school with any AP exam for any student. Majority only offer AP courses with 5 or fewer students. That is not key part of curriculum - is exception rather than the rule. As get to more rural or poverty schools see less. We want to take a statewide view and increase opportunities for all students - keep in mind all high schools. Think about how might be additional opportunities for well qualified students and rigorous opportunities. Don't get started - hard to get them finished. PSU - we offer "senior inquiry" with some Portland Schools what are not privileged students. There are questions and concerns and human resource costs to do things this well. We certify high school teachers as qualified to teach individual courses. Has had tremendous results. But we have fewer and fewer staff. Recognize costs associated with that model. Identify landscape in Oregon and what it looks like. Strengthen reach of what we have and what it will look like. In other states have other models - look to Washington to see another approach. That is something others have brought to attention of work group. Political landscape. Had multiple runs at ` running start' has not been successful owing to resource implications for K-12. One of thoughts we had would be to gather people to talk about it. Have an early opportunity to have a round table discussion about it.

Prototype middle college concept. Look at lay of land - where are strategic prototype to get best practices. Work on increasing number of AP courses. Will be roundtable on how to increase AP, IP, AB. Increase other accelerated programs. LGD should be really careful that we are not just assuming that more more more is necessarily better better better. Need to take a close look at what is going on in high schools. Need to reassess in middle arena that create problems for students that transfer. Have to be careful about putting all access on students at the high end. Shouldn't just be about AP, IB, or middle college. Think about state wide and long term - what kind of long term could create opportunities. Small issue. The vouchers that high school faculty get for use in taking courses at Universities when we do use qualification of high school teachers. Have some interesting side effects on our efforts to serve K-12. The vouchers take a big bite out of those programs. As we look to maximize use of appropriate strategies.

Retention efforts. There is a specific task force that is meeting. We can again find a strategy to share best practices.

On common core update. Student transfer committee talked about core. This group felt was good support for proposal put forward by JBAC. Need for moving on issues in a timely fashion with real recognition to how to best include individual faculty on individual campuses. How to best balance need to move quickly. Put together a timeline with an interim implementation allow something to happen quickly - allow broad based discussions. How best to provide something good for students in the meantime. Build on the AAOT.

Kristina Frankenberger (WOU): I would like to make statements about common core to this group. Our faculty is very sensitive around the common core. That is not going to go over very well. Do we have data this is going to get people through quicker better faster. On what assumptions are we basing common core? I am confused as to why this is necessary. Begs question of why a 4 year school should be a 4 year school.