Maryland Intersegmental Chief Academic Officers

November 28, 2000

University of Maryland University College


  1. Introductions
  2. Mary Ellen Hrutka welcomed the CAO group to the University of Maryland University College and told the group a little about the University and its achievements. Following her introductions the members introduced themselves.

  3. Minutes
  4. The minutes of the October 3, 2000 were tabled until the next CAO meeting.

  5. FIPSE Grant Nancy Shapiro
  6. Nancy Shapiro presented USM’s continuing interest in improving the quality of undergraduate education with a focus on improving general education. Maryland, Georgia, and Utah have been invited to be a part of a FIPSE project to improve general education on a statewide level. The work of the CAO group and the CAO discipline groups were very attractive to the FIPSE project.

    Nancy introduced project director, Dr. Robert Shoenberg, and the project’s external evaluator, Dr. Marty Finkelstein to the group. Dr. Shoenberg handed out a brief abstract for the project and discussed its objectives and goals. He indicated that a subtitle to the grant should be, "Why do I have to Take this Course." The projects stress the importance of examining the general education requirements of state systems, fully defining the requirements, and communicating the necessity of the general education requirements to students, faculty, parents, and other interested constituencies. The project stresses that students should be the ultimate beneficiaries of general education and to this end, students should be given a better understanding of the coherence of their general education and how it fits into their academic planning.

    The project does not want to tell Maryland what to do or how to do it, but wants to facilitate the understanding of general education through definition, the development of measurable outcomes, the development of written materials, and the devising and designing of informational and advising structures for general education.

    State higher education executive officers from all of the states have been invited to a conference in February 2001. The project hopes to establish a national dialog on this issue and to involve all states not just the three initially approached. A great deal of discussion took place that focused on the appropriate outcomes of general education.

  7. General Education-Discipline Group Meetings: Gene Hall
  8. Timeline, clarification of charge, English Teri Hollander
    Mathematics, reading, and proceedings

    The CAOs were asked to review the faculty lists for the discipline groups so that each institution potentially has representation on each of the discipline groups. Please forward faculty names and appropriate discipline group affiliation to Teri Hollander.

    Discussion took place regarding the nature of the groups and the process to follow. The discipline groups will report back to the CAO group for action on any recommendations. Gene Hall discussed some of the work in Minnesota and the new Middle States guidelines and standards. Jim Ball discussed some of the general education work going on at his campus and at others. Gene Hall recommended an informal work group to help set the charge to the discipline groups.

    The MHEC Student Transfer Advisory Council has on its agenda to conduct a study of the implementation of the general education regulations adopted in 1996. The study may involve a survey, appropriate focus groups, and other information. The study plan has not been finalized at this time.

  9. Mathematics Proposal Denny Gulick
  10. Denny Gulick handed out a proposal from the statewide mathematics group. This group strongly believes that, while institutional credit may be given for intermediate algebra, no general education credit or credit towards graduation should be given for intermediate algebra. He presented the vote of the mathematics group and their concerns related to the intermediate algebra issue. An active and hearty discussion took place. Final decision was tabled until a future meeting.

  11. Council for Higher Education in Music: Deborah Kent
  12. Endorsements and Next Steps

    Deborah Kent from the Council of Higher Education in Music presented the articulation plan proposal for two and four-year member institutions form the Council. A brief discussion took place. Following the discussion a motion was made to endorse the document as a CAO guiding principle. Ms. Kent thanked the group for their consideration and endorsement.

  13. K-16 Update Nancy Shapiro

CAO Co-Chairs are now invited to be members of the K-16 Workgroup with one also serving on the K-16 Steering Committee. This action will serve both groups by bringing the workings of the two groups closer together. Gene Hall is presently serving on the K-16 Steering Committee.

Nancy then discussed some current K-16 issues that included:

  1. MAITI Presentation Ron Larson, Danalee Green
  2. Ron Larson made a very informative presentation on the MAITI initiative and MAITI’s mission and goals. MAITI plans to double information technology graduates in the next five years. MAITI has had a very strong initial three years, but is still trying to get more money and sustainable funding. MAITI currently uses State, Federal, and Business donated funds to higher faculty, build information technology infrastructure at institutions, and to provide for student scholarships and internships. Discussion of MAITI took place and Ron Larson and Danalee Green were thanked for their presentation and information.

  3. Maryland On-Line Noreen Lyne, Vera Zdravkovich
  4. Noreen Lyne and Vera Zdravkovich presented information on Maryland On-Line. They discussed the merger of Maryland On-Line (MOL) with the Maryland Community College Teleconsortium (MCCT). They provided a comprehensive overview of the objectives, benefits, structure, and membership requirements. Maryland On-Line currently involves 20 institutions. The movement of MOL and MCCT was presented as a win-win situation for all institutions involved. MOL is looking to being the gateway to al Maryland distance learning opportunities. The MHEC Educational Technology Policy Council has recently asked for funding for connectivity, MOL, Maryland Digital Library, and faculty training, which were endorsed by the Commission.

    A question was raised as to how the MOL initiative ties to the distance education efforts of the Southern Regional Education Board. The response was that MOL is presently working in the State now, but would turn its efforts more regionally at a future time.

  5. Maryland Higher Education Update Michael Kiphart
  6. Michael Kiphart provided an update on the Maryland – OCR agreement. The document was in its final form and should be signed in the near future. The OCR agreement has been an enormous undertaking and should be very beneficial to the State.

    The MHEC Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) is presently working to increase its connection with and availability to the faculty on Maryland’s campuses, particularly part-time faculty. Please notify your campuses of this group and direct them to the MHEC web site for FAC information.

    The MHEC study of part-time and full-time faculty and faculty benefits is nearing completion and should be available in the near future. This study was conducted at the request of the Commission in response to increased institutional requests for faculty waivers, concern with increasing numbers of part-time faculty members, and the lack of benefits for part-time faculty. Results will be shared with the CAO group when the study is completed.

    The Maryland Technology Showcase will be happening very soon. This year the Showcase will center of education. Participation and attendance was encouraged for all.

  7. Future Meeting Dates

February 27, 2001 – MDLN meeting using four sites: Anne Arundel Community College, Coppin State College, Frederick Community College, and Wor-Wic Community College.

April or May – date to be determined. An e-mail survey will be conducted soon to determine the best date and announce the site.

Meeting Adjourned