APASC Consortium for Transfer and Alignment

APASC Consortium for Transfer and Alignment April 29, 2011 Meeting Summary

Present: Jeanne Bryce; Gail Burd; Kathleen Corak; Verlyn Fick; Sybil Francis; Melinda Gebel; Greg Gillespie; Maria Harper-Marinick; Mike Hensley; Ann Huber; Stephanie Jacobson; Juana Jose; Joann Linville; Rebecca McKay; Suzanne Miles; Karen Nicodemus; Don Pearl; Maxine Roanhorse-Dineyazhe; Mike Rourke; Kent Scribner; Jeanne Swarthout; Mark Vest and David Young Guests: Merle Bianchi; Rebecca Gau and John Huppenthal.

Background – David Young, PH.D The APASC Consortium for Transfer and Alignment (ACTA) is a new group bringing together, perhaps for the first time, representatives from the community colleges and universities along with the K-12 community. It became clear to the community colleges and universities that to accomplish the state educational goals, K-12 needed to be at the table. In addition to those who are here members include superintendents from Tucson, rural areas and two JTED districts. The purpose of this group is to discuss how to work together as an entire educational system in Arizona to increase the number of students receiving some level of postsecondary education and to determine how we can align our curricula and expectations so that students from high schools are prepared to pursue postsecondary education. This is the only place, or one of the only places, in which these conversations are occurring in the state.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction - John Huppenthal We are doing very valuable work in Arizona. However, a review of the data suggests that we have much work to do to ensure that we increase the number of individuals who earn post secondary degrees. The Arizona Department of Education wants to help school districts understand the academic progress of their students by making data available to them. For example, some students who graduate in the top 10% crash at postsecondary institutions while some average students succeed. We need to determine what helps our students succeed? This Department is very interested in developing partnerships with K-12 and postsecondary institutions to ensure increased levels of student success.

Although the current data system has challenges, they are in the process of being fixed. Mark Masterson has been hired to help improve the data system. The Department wants to develop a culture of service and fiscal efficiencies. They are engaged in some great partnerships, and are looking to be innovative. Breathtaking breakthroughs and changes in education can and should be made. Our educational system has not changed in generations; it has not “evolved” like other institutions.

These innovations will come from technology, changes in culture and initiatives. Move on When Ready for example, is a phenomenal initiative. The Department wants to establish a state model after looking at the best nations, states, districts, schools and classrooms. The Department would like to work with ACTA. When these breakthroughs become realities higher education needs to be part of the change process. For example, he anticipates significant change in the classroom of the future. Activity will increase and students will learn more quickly using technology. They may complete two academic years in one year. We need to be visionary and ready for dramatic change.

Office of Education Innovation - Rebecca Gau, Director Education Innovation is not about technology (which is a valuable tool) rather establishing effective organizational designs and policies grounded on good data and collaboration in a results driven and continuous improvement environment. In this environment the data are use regularly, in a strategic way so that policies and decisions can be made quickly. A solid organizational design for student success is built around collaboration and good data.

Many are familiar with the fact that Arizona applied for a Race to the Top (RTTT) grant. The Governor wanted to ensure that an excellent plan was written so that if Arizona was not funded (it was not), other funding options could be pursued. Even though the application was not funded, it is now the state plan from which nineteen recommendations were developed. The first four emphasize the need for data. Collaboration is important as is having good information (data) to share. We need to analyze the data, see where the gaps are and determine how to close them. Professional Learning Communities are being considered.

The nineteenth recommendation in the plan was to adjust the P-20 Council agenda to be more performance management based, and to have staff to move the agenda forward. In order to accomplish that goal, R. Gau has met with a variety of groups statewide to learn best practices, collaborate and facilitate the implementation of programs for a stronger educational system. She would like to learn more about the pathways being discussed to determine if they might help improve the remediation issues in the state.

We need to know what the job markets will look like in the state and regionally, so our regional populations can be educated to meet market needs. Science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) will be important areas of study. STEM areas integrate science curricula. She wants to help build collaboration with and increase the dialog between K-12 and higher education in Arizona and regional communities. R. Gau has visited most counties in Arizona discussing the STEM educational needs, the regional goals [regions currently are defined as counties, though there may be some change to that] and what is happening in education in the regions. This communication is critical. There are discussions about the possibility of providing some regional funding if available/needed. There are a number of initiatives that will change education; performance driven education is key. The success of her work will be measured in part by the sustainability of the structures that are in place regionally so that performance driven education will be ongoing.

Another potential opportunity for funding is through Complete College America. Arizona will develop a proposal which, if not funded through CCA, will seek funding elsewhere.

When we discuss higher education in Arizona, we include community colleges and universities. D. Young noted that ACTA was created in part because the higher education community was underrepresented in the RTTT committee. Arizona is not organized around a “system of higher education” which might be used to our advantage. However, we need to develop a more effective way to replicate successes. For example, MAPPS and TAGS are effective but labor intensive. If there was a system to facilitate their development, that would be helpful.

J. Swarthout asked who participated in the regional meetings. R. Gau has been working with superintendents, educational communities, school districts, local business industries, work force development, UA Extension representatives, JTED, private citizens, etc. to ensure connectivity within the community. She will ensure that higher education is better represented in the future. M. Roanhorse-Dineyazhe asked about the involvement of the Tribal communities. There are 22 tribal nations and all have education directors. R. Gau indicated that there was some representation at the Apache County meeting and there are plans to visit Diné College and other tribal locations. K. Nicodemus indicated a need for better “connective tissue” between K-12 and postsecondary education. D. Young indicated that we are working on the issue of curricular alignment. We should have a framework in place for developing the alignment. M. Harper-Marinick suggested it needs to be multilayered.

The nineteenth recommendation requires a results driven atmosphere. Performance management planning for continuous improvement was implemented in the charter schools and is a good model. R. Gau was asked if she could develop a performance management process for the state. She suggested that to do so, you need to have state level goals, then more detailed metrics will need to be developed for districts/institutions.

R. Gau has developed six “indicators.” We need to do a gap analysis at the state level using these indicators, identify the largest gaps and focus on those first.

We can handle various levels of success in different ways. For example community college and university graduation rates are under discussion as measures of success. We can bring in other organizations that have programs for drop-out prevention. She explained how to segment some of the data to drive policy, and determine who to bring to the table to work on issues at the programmatic level, evaluate what is and is not working, and how to make change.

J. Huppenthal has a strong data focus as does her office. They are collaborating on what those data should be, realizing that there will be some overlap, as well as a different display of some of the same data. They will use Dashboard and link to each other’s web pages. D. Young indicated the data should be linked to Getting AHEAD. Metrics have been developed and we need to know which ones to begin using, and when new ones need to be established. K. Nicodemus indicated that we should be creating goals of aspiration and completion. S. Miles suggested that “intent” should be used as a measure of success.

Update on Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) - Karen Nicodemus Tom Anderes was nominated as the Arizona representative on PARCC because he is the co-chair of the Joint Council of Presidents. The final votes will be soon. A web site has been created. That link will be sent to ACTA members. A group met to develop recommendations about the design of high school mathematics. Each state is being asked to have math faculty respond to the design in 30-60 days, which will be during the summer when most postsecondary math faculty are off contract. Consider using the Mathematics ATF members for this review. There needs to be specificity in what feedback is being requested from faculty, and hope that some are checking emails over the summer. Regrettably, there are no written records of the meetings so getting information out to appropriate stakeholders is a challenge. She anticipates that a there will be a fall meeting. The committee is still in the process of determining what it means to be “college ready” in math. College algebra may be that “anchor” but this is still under discussion. ACTA can be engaged in some of the initiatives.

Center for the Future of Arizona and Pathways - Sybil Francis (18/18 and 149.00) The Center for the Future of Arizona is a “convener” of appropriate individuals to consider significant issues impacting the state. We need to do a better job encouraging students to think about postsecondary options, and ensuring they are college ready. At CFA, they would like to build on some of the work that is being done to transition students from the community colleges to the universities, and create seamless pathways between the different educational systems. They are mindful of the remediation that is currently needed. We need to improve the understanding of benchmarks for academic success. The college readiness standards will help, but that does not take away the need to be more specific with students. They need to consider their career choices when considering their curriculum, keeping in mind that math is the “gateway” course. Build a strong common core in 9th and 10th grades then guide students to academic pathways that meets their needs and interests. Also, we can look at academic pathways to see how students construct their curriculum in high school.

K. Scribner talked about the Phoenix Union High School District. It incorporates grades 9-12 and has approximately 25,000 students. Additionally, there are 13 different elementary school districts with 120,000 students feeding into the system. Phoenix Union has a history of focusing on high school completion. The District is 90% minority with 77% at or below the federal poverty line. Instead of continuing to focus on high school graduation, they are now focused on college preparedness. All 11th graders take the ACT at no cost to them. In the 9th and 10th grades the curriculum is more rigorous than in the past. Some students pursue AP or IB curriculum. Dual enrollment and the AGEC are tools also being used. They are changing their culture by changing the rigor of the curriculum. Some of the pathways on which they are focused include: computer science, gaming, engineering, architecture and robotics (GEAR). Students can begin to take courses relevant to their career choice after the sophomore year. They are partnering with CFA, the community colleges and the universities. K. Scribner is trying to develop a culture of Move IN When Ready for his students. When asked how he got the teachers to “buy in” he indicated that there are 1600 teachers in his district so there was an opportunity for them to self select. When you focus on careers, the curriculum becomes more relevant to the students and if the math level is appropriate for the career aspiration, students might be more successful. If students change their minds about their career paths, then adjustments will need to be made. G. Burd indicated that students should be encouraged to have biology, chemistry and physics in high school for the breadth of knowledge in science.

K. Nicodemus indicated that the Common Core State Standards might help drive pathways. The pathways include an AGEC and that selecting the appropriate AGEC will help the student in the selection of science courses and encourage students to pursue a pathway that is aligned with their career goals. There is also a pathway for undecided students. Once the pathways are in place, we should see more students with Associate degrees. J. Swarthout said that it is getting harder to find qualified teachers for dual enrollment. This discussion is good, and will continue at the fall meeting. Another consideration is the AAS to BAS. Universities need to ensure that the degrees are aligned with CTE if appropriate.

Arizona Student Pipeline: From Start to Finish - Dan Anderson D. Anderson discussed the data from four reports and shared some observations: 1. 2009 High School Eligibility Study: demonstrates how prepared high school students are to move on to the state universities. a. A random sample of high school transcripts for all high school graduates in the state was obtained to determine how many were eligible to enroll in the universities. b. A “blip” in the data occurred in 1998 when the admission standards changed, otherwise, virtually no change in student eligibility. c. Of 100 Arizona high school students whose transcripts were reviewed, slightly less than half were eligible for admission to the universities. d. Students are not eligible if they have only 2 years of math or English. e. Only 42% of students whose transcripts were reviewed took all four years of math.

2. 2009 – 10 High School Report Card: indicates how well recent high school graduates are doing at the universities particularly in math and English a. Prepared every year by the universities; community colleges do something similar b. The average grade point average statewide of those admitted with at least one deficiency is under 2.6 c. The average grade point average of those admitted without deficiencies is 3.00. d. About 73% of those admitted to the universities are admitted without deficiencies e. The academic performance of students in the first year of college math is worse than those in the first year of college English

3. Arizona Student Pipeline Report for 2003-04 to 2009-10: analyses the postsecondary outcomes of Arizona high school graduates going in- or out-of-state at all types of schools a. Demonstrates “Outcomes for Arizona High School Graduates in Postsecondary Education” who graduated in 2003-4 through 2008-9 as of 2009-10 b. Number of students who received an Arizona high school diploma in each year. These students’ data were sent to the National Student Clearinghouse. They will be compared against the NSC database, so they can be tracked nationally) c. Class six years away from high school graduation (2003-2004): i. 3.4% have graduated from a 2 year institution. ii. 16.9% have graduated from four year postsecondary institution iii. 26.5% have had some postsecondary education iv. 53.1% no college education. v. 79.7% of Arizona high school graduates after 6 years have no degree. d. If students don’t move on to postsecondary education almost immediately after high school graduation, they are unlikely to reenter education. e. Analysis is from the student perspective – the highest educational attainment; some of the 4 year degree recipients do have an associate degree f. In addition to preparing individuals for new jobs, we must also prepare people to take those jobs from which baby-boomers are retiring. g. We should encourage students who have some college but not a degree to continue and to earn a degree. i. Some without a degree might have many credits, and with a minimum amount of additional courses work could earn a degree. ii. M. Harper-Marinick learned that there are many MCCD students missing only one or two courses to complete a degree. We need to reach out to them and/or consider reverse articulation.

4. 2010 Annual Report on Wages Earned by University System Graduates: what happens to the individuals with specific degrees. a. Wages of graduates in 2009 i. Baccalaureate degrees awarded from the 3 universities from 1990 to 2009. ii. We are matching individual [under]graduates to wages. iii. High employment rate for 2009 graduates (Arizona residents working in Arizona); about 78% are working in Arizona. iv. One year out (2008) about 14,500 baccalaureate recipients; 72.9% working in state v. Would like to track employment and wages of all Arizona state university system graduates across the nation. vi. The chart assumes graduates go to work. It does doesn’t take into account those who go on to graduate school.

b. Undergraduates Working in Arizona & Their Wages in 2009: these data demonstrate the median wages by largest instructional areas for those working in Arizona i. Cohort of graduates for 2005 – 09 looking at the largest instructional areas: Business/Management/Marketing; Education; Social Sciences; Communication & Journalism; Health Professions and Related; Psychology and Engineering. ii. Data come from the Department of Economic Security[DES] iii. The median wage was used. iv. We don’t know the occupation in which the person is working; we only know the degree earned. v. The wages in the Phoenix metropolitan area are generally higher than Tucson; Tucson generally higher than Flagstaff vi. It helps to have the data discussed in context. Misconceptions are possible without the context. vii. Must instill in high school and middle school students the importance of education.

5. It was noted that Mike Hensley is retiring, and how much his work has been appreciated.

Meeting adjourned.

AFH: 8/01/11; rev. 10/31/11