Oregon State Board of Higher Education

Excellence in Delivery and Productivity

Statewide Student Data System

More	Better	Faster
Ö	Ö	Ö

Description: A student-centered K-16 data system to help identify and support adequacy of student academic preparation.

Benefits:

• Academic development and preparation feedback to students and their families based upon progress towards admission standards and requirements. This will lead to more students being prepared to pursue college.
• OUS admission feedback available as early as 8^th grade.
• Easier and faster admission application process to OUS and community college through electronic transmission of a standardized high school transcript.
• Feedback to high schools regarding student performance in college leading to more informed high school curricular planning and greater student academic preparation.
• Cost savings to high schools by eliminating the need to print, certify and mail a transcript for students to each Oregon college of choice.
• Cost savings and greater efficiency for OUS admission offices by direct download of admission data into Banner student information system.
• College retention and graduation rates will increase as a result of better-prepared students.
• More students will enroll in college because of the earlier and more effective feedback about college preparation.
• OUS will being to send community colleges feedback similar to what is provided to high schools regarding student academic performance for better curricular alignment and practice leading to better prepared transfer students who will graduate sooner and at higher rates from OUS.
• Course placement practices at OUS and community colleges may be streamlined and made more efficient through the expansion of TESA ( K-12 on-line academic assessment system) to offer placement data replacing more costly placement practices.

Number of Beneficiaries:

· All Oregon high school students and over 4,000 community college transfer students.

Notes:

• K-16 shared data system
• Joint project with Oregon Department of Education, Oregon Community College and Workforce Development and OUS Chancellor’s Office
• Prototype development to be completed June 2004 involving EOU, OSU and PSU along with Chemeketa, Clackamas, Portland and Linn-Benton Community colleges and Multnomah, Linn-Benton
• Next step planning completed.

Cost: $ (XXX, K-12, YYY CCWD, ZZZ OUS)

Staffing: Project Manager for two years (1.0) FTE.

Student Data System Activity Calendar

FY 2003-04

1. EDI (college to college student data transfer system): currently in 3 community colleges and 3 OUS campuses—No Cost.
2. Prototype development of integrated data system involving OUS, community colleges and high schools, projected completion June 2004—No cost (OUS federal grant).
3. Continued implementation at individual campuses of student self-advising and graduation completion tool (DARS, CAS, and CAPP) —No cost.
4. Conduct TESA (K-12 on-line assessment tool) content review and comparison to current placement instruments for possible use in college course placement for current high school seniors and adults returning to college—No cost.
5. Continue infrastructure support and staffing for a joint K-16 integrated data system—Low Cost

FY 2004-05

1. Add EDI to remaining community colleges and OUS campuses—Low cost.
2. Scale-up K-16 data system to a statewide service—High cost.
1. Secure federal and private foundation support.
2. Create one-year post-secondary IT support team to assist all community colleges and OUS schools.
3. Expand student self-advising and graduation completion tool to OUS campuses and community colleges lacking such systems—High cost.
4. Expand TESA to meet college placement needs—Low to High cost.

FY 2005-06

1. Fully implement and support EDI—Very low cost
2. Continue training of school and campus personnel regarding use of K-16 data system—Low cost.
3. Complete expansion of student self-advising and graduation completion tool—High cost.
4. Validate performance of expansion of TESA for college placement—Low cost.

Beyond 2005-06

1. Maintain software for K-16 data system—No cost.
2. Transition software and hardware management to become part of the on-going organizational cost structures.

Note: Cost designations such as no, low or high address the expense to the Oregon legislature to support the possible activity. The cost designations have not been fully defined. They are useful as relative indicators of cost. The designations will be replaced with actual cost figures as the project analysis develops.

Oregon State Board of Higher Education

Excellence in Delivery and Productivity

Dual Enrollment Framework

More	Better	Faster
Ö	Ö	Ö

Description: Set of agreement requirements that ensure dual enrollment agreements between OUS campuses and community colleges have the necessary components to ensure that they remain student-centered and successful pathways to college completion.

Benefits:

• Increased access to bachelor’s degree for students.
• Increased efficiency for campus administration of program.
• Improved articulation of course credits and learning outcomes resulting in better quality experience for the student.
• Greater stability and effectiveness of agreements through earlier and more collaborative decision making regarding general education and lower division curricular changes.
• Stronger partnership between community colleges and OUS.
• Faster time to degree for students.
• Reduced expense and debt to students as a result of lower tuition at community college and overall shorter time to degree. Note LBCC and OSU dual enrollment agreement estimates a cost-savings of $4,000 for participating students.

Number of Beneficiaries:

· Upwards of 5,000 students annually. Over 4,000 students transfer to OUS from an Oregon community college annually. Additionally, a growing number of students are participating in the dual admission programs. These students are not part of the 4,000 plus annual transfer students.

Notes:

· There are currently 26 formal agreements between OUS and Oregon community colleges. The agreements are unique to the partnership and may lack some of the essential set of requirements.

· The Joint Boards Articulation Commission (community college, OUS campus, Community College Workforce Development, and OUS Chancellors Office representatives) will identify the essential elements of dual enrollment agreements.

· Elements that may be include articulation of courses leading to a complete articulation table, electronic data sharing protocols and support, advanced notification and/or consultation regarding changes in curriculum, financial aid consortium agreement that is approved by U.S. Department of Education, and student advising and support levels for transfer students.

· An agreement is not required for every school since some schools have little or no student transfers between them.

· Efficient timing of data transfer is critical for financial aid processing.

Cost:

1. JBAC is an existing work group and can produce the framework at no additional cost. Development of data sharing system is contained in the “Statewide Student Data System” expenses.

2. Project Coordination including research, identification of successful models in other states and facilitation of process. for one year—.33 FTE. Logistics and staff support .33 FTE

Dual Enrollment Framework Activity Calendar

FY 2003-04

1. Complete inventory of current Dual Enrollment agreements—No cost.
2. JBAC review most recent community college and OUS dual enrollment agreement and extract best practices framework for endorsement in May—No cost.
3. Adopt framework as developed by JBAC—No cost.
1. Completed March, 2004.

FY 2004-05

1. Expand number of dual enrollment agreements to include all community colleges—Low cost (technology and articulation).
2. Revise existing agreements to comply with new framework—Low cost (technology and articulation).
3. Continue JBAC review and study of benefit of the framework to student success—No cost.
4. Statewide financial aid consortium agreement signed to facilitate more effective processing of financial aid awards.

Note: Cost designations such as no, low or high address the expense to the Oregon legislature to support the possible activity. The cost designations have not been fully defined. They are useful as relative indicators of cost. The designations will be replaced with actual cost figures as the project analysis develops.

Relevant Data:

Current Oregon Dual Enrollment Agreements, March 2004

	EOU	OIT	OSU	PSU	SOU	UO	WOU
Blue Mountain	Ö			Ö
Central Oregon			Ö
Chemeketa			Ö
Clackamas				Ö
Clatsop
Columbia Gorge		Ö
Klamath		Ö	Ö	Ö
Lane						Ö
Linn Benton			Ö
Mt. Hood	Ö			Ö
Oregon Coast
Portland		Ö	Ö	Ö
Rogue					Ö
Southwestern			Ö
Tillamook Bay		Ö	Ö	Ö
Treasure Valley	Ö
Umpqua

Source: Community College Workforce Development

Oregon State Board of Higher Education

Excellence in Delivery and Productivity

High School Accelerated Curriculum Menu

More	Better	Faster
Ö	Ö	Ö

Description: Creation of a variety of curricular options that results in students from every Oregon public high school having the opportunity to enroll in an accelerated academic courses that could result in the earning of college credits before college matriculation.

Benefits:

· Greater academic preparation of high school students for college.

· Increased college retention and graduation rates as a result of increased preparation.

· Faster time to degree due to the earning of college credits and higher level of preparation.

· Reduced student debt resulting from faster time to degree.

· More students enrolling in college because of greater visibility and frequency of students in the high school succeeding in college-level courses.

Number of beneficiaries:

• Every Oregon public high school student—171,000

Notes:

• To be truly successful accelerated learning options must be made available to all students.
• In some school districts and states every student is expected to enroll in at least one accelerated course while in high school.
• The menu approach provides high schools with maximum flexibility in implementing programmatic approaches that best serve their students.
• There are two basic categories single-courses and curriculum-based.
• Single courses include Advanced Placement (AP) and College Now.
• Curriculum-based includes Early Options (Jump Start), International Baccalaureate (IB), and Middle College.
• The curriculum-based approach when implemented will be sustainable and benefit more students.
• Early Options is based upon the highly successful Running Start Program in Washington. It has a history of legislative interest in Oregon, but funding impact upon high schools has been an issue.
• The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) received a federal grant based upon a three-year collaboration with OUS to increase the number of low-income students who take AP or IB.
• There are two middle colleges in Oregon, one with Clackamas CC and the other with Mt. Hood.
• College Now enrolled over 10,000 students in academic courses in 2002-03.
• AP is in approximately half of the Oregon high schools, most often offering a single course.
• IB is in 15 Oregon high schools.
• Small and rural high schools are most likely not to offer an accelerated course opportunity.
• Distance education (on-line) courses may address the access gap.
• Inventory of all current accelerated learning opportunities in Oregon high schools.
• Upper level course offerings in high schools have been reduced in response to budget cuts.
• Funding secured by OUS and ODE to host statewide roundtable on May 25 regarding expanding accelerated learning opportunities for students.

Cost: Low to Moderate. Staffing—Project Manager (1.0 FTE) logistics and staff support (.33 FTE) for two years.

High School Accelerated Curriculum Menu Activity Calendar

FY 2003-04

1. Conduct statewide inventory of accelerated learning opportunities—No cost (completed March).
2. Continue implementation of ODE federal grant to increase the number of low-income students who take AP or IB courses—No cost.
3. Conduct statewide roundtable with key policy makers to increase the opportunities for students to take accelerated courses—No cost (WICHE funding secured).
4. Train additional qualified high school teachers to offer community college courses—Low cost.
5. Identify other funding sources to support Middle College and Early Options—No cost.

FY 2004-05

1. Increase the number of student successfully completing an accelerated course—Low cost.
2. Expand and develop prototype Middle Colleges—Low cost.
1. Maximize opportunity offered by ODE and CCWD to promote Middle Colleges—No cost.
3. Prototype Early Options in small number of locations—Low cost.
4. Add on-line courses for AP and Community College Now instruction to increase statewide access—Low cost.
5. Link to developing ESD consortium and community college on-line delivery—No cost.

FY 2005-06

1. Review progress and success rates of prototypes—No cost.
2. Plan expansion of Middle Colleges and Early Options—No cost

Note: Cost designations such as no, low or high address the expense to the Oregon legislature to support the possible activity. The cost designations have not been fully defined. They are useful as relative indicators of cost. The designations will be replaced with actual cost figures as the project analysis develops.

Relevant Data:

Summary of inventory

Oregon State Board of Higher Education

Excellence in Delivery and Productivity

On-Line Education

More	Better	Faster
Ö	Ö	Ö

Description: Use of the Internet and other modes of transmission to provide students in all parts of the state with access to college and high school level courses.

Benefits:

· Greater access to academic courses for students.

· Better flexibility to students to take a broader range of courses to better fit the student’s schedule.

· Faster time to degree.

· Reduction in log-jam course offerings.

· Greater academic preparation of students for college.

Number of Beneficiaries:

• All Oregon students: high school and post-secondary education.

Notes:

• Oregon Network for Education (Oregon One) currently provides course information on a majority of distance delivered college courses in Oregon.
• Nearly all public post-secondary institutions offer on-line courses.
• EOU is a national leader in provision of on-line courses and degree programs.
• On-line courses provide same quality in terms of learning outcomes as do traditional on-sight lecture courses.
• Many high schools are using on-line courses to supplement curriculum limitations.
• On-line courses provide institutions and students with far greater scheduling flexibility since classroom space need not be scheduled.
• There are some content specific limitations such as laboratory experiences that cannot be offered on-line yet due to either high cost or technology limits.
• Opportunities may exist to expand offerings by matching excess technology capacity in one college with available teaching capacity in another (see Chemeketa and WOU in Writing)

Cost:

• Instructional cost in some academic areas may be comparable traditional lecture style.

Online Education Activity Calendar

FY 2003-04

1. Conduct audit of course offerings and cost to offer addition sections by examining ONE Web site, CC study, and OUS study—No cost.
2. Conduct statewide inventory of technology capacity and instructional capacity to identify opportunities for expansion of course offerings without having to hire more faculty or invest in more technology infrastructure—No cost.
3. Research current impact and identify areas of needs—No cost.
4. Expand courses offerings to meet high demand areas by proving faculty additional training and bossing infrastructure—Low cost.
5. Identify best practices nationally—No cost.

FY 2004-05

1. Create more online course to meet student demand—Low cost.

FY 2005-06

Note: Cost designations such as no, low or high address the expense to the Oregon legislature to support the possible activity. The cost designations have not been fully defined. They are useful as relative indicators of cost. The designations will be replaced with actual cost figures as the project analysis develops.

Relevant Data:

Oregon State Board of Higher Education

Excellence in Delivery and Productivity

Retention

More	Better	Faster
Ö	Ö	Ö

Description: Providing a set of services and support that increases student opportunities for successful completion of a bachelor’s degree.

Benefits:

• Increased college graduation rates.
• Increased student learning as a result of more consistent student progress towards the degree.
• Increased number of skilled workers in Oregon.

Number of Beneficiaries: Over 1,000 entering resident undergraduates each fall who do not complete their degree at OUS or do not transfer to another college or university.

Notes:

• Retention is the product of many factors including student preparation, college affordability, initial degree objective, enrollment pattern, and connectivity to campus.
• The OUS six-year undergraduate completion rate for OUS Fall 1995 entering first-time freshmen was 55.5%.
• There was significant variance depending upon the OUS campus.
• Students transferring from an Oregon community college had a comparable graduation rate as those students who completed their first year at an OUS institution.
• One-third of OUS undergraduates who failed to complete their bachelor’s degree at an OUS institution transferred to another college or university (Fall 1995 entering class).
• The majority of retention loss occurs in the student’s initial year in college.
• Student support services including academic advising have experienced significant reductions in staffing at colleges and universities nationally and in Oregon as a result of reductions in state funding for higher education.
• Successful articulation results in “smoothing the flow” for students between campuses.

Costs: To be determined, depending upon the type of activities identified.

Student Retention Activity Calendar

FY 2003-04

1. Engage in a series of fact-finding discussions with campus student affairs staff and faculty—No cost.
2. Use the National Student Clearinghouse data to research the enrollment and graduation patterns of undergraduate students who have left OUS institutions to more accurately measure dropout and graduation rates—No cost (April 2004).
3. Identify best practices in Oregon that may be replicated at other campuses—No cost.
4. Conduct research into national programs that have achieved success—No cost.
5. Produce a summary of findings and best practices for distribution—No cost.
6. Update inventory OUS campus best practices and disseminate examples to all campuses—No cost.

FY 2004-05

1. Implement best practices.
2. Continue to monitor retention rates.

Greatest influences on chances of receiving a degree, once enrolled

• College grades
• Continuous sequence of attendance
• Full-time attendance
• Student interaction with peers, participation in campus activities, interaction with faculty, and advising
• Living on campus
• Certain types of financial aid

Source: “Getting Through College – the New England Success Study”

Oregon State Board of Higher Education

Excellence in Delivery and Productivity

Statewide Common Core

More	Better	Faster
Ö	Ö	Ö

Description: Academic outcome based set of student skills, knowledge, and experiences that would be accepted for transfer by all Oregon public two-and four-year colleges and universities as meeting comparable general education common core requirements. Core would be stabilized so that curricular drift would be prevented.

Benefits:

· More efficient student progress towards bachelor degree.

· Better academic preparation for success at all post-secondary institutions.

· Improved graduation rates for all post-secondary institutions.

· Better alignment of core curriculum outcomes.

· Enhanced high school instruction guided by the common core outcomes.

Number of Beneficiaries:

· All community college students intending to pursue a four-year degree (60,000) + 60,000 OUS undergraduates.

Notes:

· Content and outcome alignment of math and writing courses previously completed. Results need to be reviewed and updated.

· Oregon is one of only five western states that lacks a common general education core.

· Joint Boards Articulation Commission (JBAC) has developed a general framework and declared that Oregon should develop a statewide General Education Core.

· The joint meeting of OUS Provosts and community college academic deans identified a common core as an area of development at its February 2004 meeting.

· Campuses need to have the time and opportunity to assess student academic progress.

· Establish a process that has a set time frame for completion.

· Look to use professional facilitators to keep process on track.

· It may be more productive to begin process by looking at skills, knowledge, and background by specific academic major and then identify areas of commonality.

Costs:

· $600,000 to 850,000 to support active faculty participation from all community colleges and OUS campuses in all disciplinary areas.

· Staffing: Project Coordinator . to conduct research and facilitate faculty meetings in discipline areas.--67 FTE for 18 months, plus .33 administrative support for 18 months.

Common Core Activity Calendar

FY 2003-04

1. Design common core development process( include JBAC, IFS, Academic Council and Community College Academic Deans)—No cost.
2. JBAC prepare background research and identify other successful models in other states—No cost.
3. State Board of Education and State Board of Higher Education endorse policy in response to JBAC recommendation of statewide general education core.

FY 2004-05

1. Implement statewide process with active faculty involvement—$600,000 to 850,000.
2. Publish results of common core development sessions on Internet and for faculty use—CCWD and OUS.
3. Adoption by OUS and community college campuses of a statewide common core.

FY 2005-06

1. Campus curriculum revisions, if needed—No cost.
2. JBAC review and follow-up—No cost.

Note: Cost designations such as no, low or high address the expense to the Oregon legislature to support the possible activity. The cost designations have not been fully defined. They are useful as relative indicators of cost. The designations will be replaced with actual cost figures as the project analysis develops.

Relevant Data:

Proposed Features of the Oregon General Education Common Core

1. Includes major areas of knowledge as stipulated by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (Policy 2.1).
2. Based upon widely accepted general education outcomes (knowledge, skills etc), not specific sets of courses.
3. Universally transferable among all Oregon public colleges and universities and participating private institutions.
4. Allow components of the core to be earned at multiple institutions while also being fully transferable among participating institutions.
5. Complement general education and distribution requirements of current AAOT degree.
6. Provide institutional autonomy to identify how its curriculum addresses the outcomes yet ensures full transferability for students.
7. Have strong links with work that has been completed for the Proficiency-based Admission Standards System (PASS).

Source: JBAC General Education core Curriculum Task Force, March 2004

Oregon State Board of Higher Education

Excellence in Delivery and Productivity

Other Activities

More	Better	Faster
Ö	Ö	Ö

Description: Campus and statewide efforts that support the effort to increase the enrollment of students in college (more) and enhance preparation for college.

Benefits:

• Increased student enrollment in college.
• Increased awareness and understanding of the importance of college for the students and the state of Oregon.
• Improved coordination of pre-college programs to provide a more effective platform for student success and development.

Number of Beneficiaries: All middle and high school students and their families.

Notes:

• Expand the use and utility of the Internet as a method of informing students and their families about college. Must include material in multiple languages.
• Develop statewide marketing and information campaign to promote college access and enrollment. Include in the campaign information on opportunities such as on-line education, accelerated learning opportunities, financial aid and scholarships, and the importance of a college education.
• Coordinate the efforts of programs such as TRIO and GEAR UP that work with many of the same low-income communities.

Cost: To be determined.

Other Activities Activity Calendar

FY 2003-04

1. Expand use of the Internet to inform students and parents about college by review Web sites currently successful in their content and format—No cost.
2. Study feasibility developing statewide marketing and information campaign to promote college access and enrollment—No cost.
3. Coordinate and maximize GEAR UP and TRIO programs by holding statewide program directors meetings to better coordinate efforts—No cost.

FY 2004-05

1. Expand college Web sites to support best practices—Low cost.
2. Implement statewide marketing and information campaign promoting college access and enrollment—Low cost.
3. Continue to cooperate and support submission of new funding requests built upon GEAR UP and TRIO partnerships—No cost.

FY 2005-06

1. Maintain content of Web pages created—No cost.

Note: Cost designations such as no, low or high address the expense to the Oregon legislature to support the possible activity. The cost designations have not been fully defined. They are useful as relative indicators of cost. The designations will be replaced with actual cost figures as the project analysis develops.

Relevant Data:

Oregon State Board of Higher Education

Excellence in Delivery and Productivity

Incentives for Earlier Graduation

More	Better	Faster
Ö	Ö	Ö

Description: Incentives to students and academic departments to foster more students completing their undergraduate degrees in a more timely manner.

Benefits:

· Faster completion of education.

• Less student loan debt.
• More access for new students as a result of more efficient educational cycle.
• More student access to high-demand majors.

Number of Beneficiaries: All OUS undergraduates.

Notes:

• Incentives would be for students and universities.
• Student incentives could include such as items as priority course registration for final academic term or tuition scholarship for students who may graduate in less time than the average for their major.
• Need to balance relationship between access and preparation level of incoming students.
• Campus or department incentives could include RAM adjustments or other financial.
• Average time to degree would need to be calculated for each major and university.
• Requires adequate data system to support both average time-to-degree calculations and accurate identification of students who may qualify for incentives.
• Must include community college articulation and partnership success.

Costs: Depends on incentive levels. $1 Million pilot project in highest demand areas.

Incentives for Earlier Graduation Activity Calendar

FY 2003-04

1. Determine if RAM should be adjusted to reward faster graduation by studying its feasibility and economic impact—No cost.
2. Study feasibility of giving fee remission for students who complete college early—No cost.
3. Give students in final term priority registration to ensure they receive the courses needed to graduate—No cost once data system in place (see CAS/CAP).

FY 2004-05

1. If RAM is adjusted, conduct policy review and make appropriate modifications to reward faster graduation time—Low cost.
2. If RAM is adjusted, conduct policy review and make appropriate modifications to provide students fee remission incentives for early completion—Low cost.
3. Continue reviewing other advantages to giving incentives for earlier graduation and implement if appropriate—No cost.

FY 2005-06

1. If appropriate, implement RAM adjustments that reward faster gradation time—No cost.

Note: Cost designations such as no, low or high address the expense to the Oregon legislature to support the possible activity. The cost designations have not been fully defined. They are useful as relative indicators of cost. The designations will be replaced with actual cost figures as the project analysis develops.

Relevant Data:

· More than one-third of college students who graduated in the 1999-2000 academic year took either five or six years to complete their bachelor’s degrees. Such students, sometimes derisively called “professional students,” take up valuable seats in the classroom that could go to other students who need them more.

• Some students say they stay longer because state budget cuts have forced colleges to cut back on the number of courses they offer, making it difficult to graduate in four years. Many students can afford to attend college only part time.

• What appears to work best is offering students information and advice on how not to take unnecessary courses in the first place.

• The University of Florida started a program in 1996 that guarantees a slot in any course required for a student’s major, and students can track online to see how long it would take them to graduate if they change majors. The university then saw its graduation rate jump from 38 percent to 50.8 percent from 1990 to 2002.

Source: “Please Leave Already,” The Chronicle of Higher Education,

Oregon State Board of Higher Education

Excellence in Delivery and Productivity

Transfer and Accelerated Learning Incentive Scholarships

More	Better	Faster
Ö	Ö	Ö

Description: Two types of scholarships to students

· Community college students to support successful transfer to an OUS campus

· Incentive to current middle school students to take rigorous courses that lead to receipt of college credit while in high school.

Benefits:

· Increased access to college from improved affordability.

· Shortened time to degree due to decreased need for students to work while in college.

· Increased preparation of students before college entry results in greater student success in terms of graduation rate and shorter time to degree.

· Opportunity to further develop OUS/community college partnerships through the use of scholarships in a strategic manner.

· Additional financial support for students.

Number of Beneficiaries:

· Depends upon the amount of increased fee remission authority and the average award amount.

Notes:

· Oregon Legislature placed an expenditure limitation upon the OUS fee remission program, setting it at 8% of total tuition revenues. This resulted in a $7.5 million dollar reduction in the fee remission program.

· In 2001-02 excluding the limited number of students participating in international student exchange programs, over 91% of fee remissions were awarded to undergraduate students who were also eligible for federal need-based financial aid.

· Scholarship program would be another campus-based fee remission program with administration by the campus.

· Modeled on national GEAR UP scholarship model.

· OUS Board would approve goals and parameters of the program.

· This program would secure additional expenditure authority for these targeted initiatives, thus not at the expense of current fee remission programs.

· It is possible that the new scholarships could be implemented on a trial basis. Middle school incentive scholarships could be targeted at schools that send a low percentage of students to college, this there would not be a diversion of tuition revenue from students that are already capable and willing to pay a higher amount.

· Scholarships for community college transfers could also be targeted for students who attended community colleges that sent a low number or percentage of students to OUS.

· Investigate placement of this issue into ASET design deliberations.

· Explore the efficacy of staggering the award years and duration (i.e. 2-year awards to college juniors or 1-year award to college senior) to address affordability and retention.

Cost:

No general fund expense, but $7.5 Million dollar increase in expenditure limitation.

Transfer and Accelerated Learning Incentive Scholarships Activity Calendar

FY 2003-04

1. Planning and scholarship design including eligible school selection—No cost.
2. Create small advisory workgroup of enrollment management professionals—No cost.

FY 2004-05

1. Initial offering of scholarships to middle school students. No awards for six years—No cost.
2. Initial offering to community college students—No cost.

FY 2004-05

1. Continued offering of scholarships to community college students—No cost.
2. Continued work with middle school students to support continued academic development—No cost.

Note: Cost designations such as no, low or high address the expense to the Oregon legislature to support the possible activity. The cost designations have not been fully defined. They are useful as relative indicators of cost. The designations will be replaced with actual cost figures as the project analysis develops.

Enrollment in Oregon Colleges by High School Poverty Level 1998-2002

(By Participation Level in Federal Free or Reduced Lunch Program)

Sources: Oregon Department of Education and Oregon Student Assistance Commission