Intersegmental Chief Academic Officers

Morgan State University

November 24, 1998


Welcome: Dr. Richardson, President, MSU brought greetings to the group, expressed his appreciation of the importance of the work of the group.

Members Present: M.J. McMahon, TU, Jo Williams, CCCC, Barbara Tower, CCBC-E, Jane Turnbull, MHEC-FAC, Mary Gartner, FSU, Teri Hollander, USMH, Florence Agbonyitor, BCCC, Nancy Shapiro, USMH, Jim Foran, MSDE, Robert Hampton, UMCP, Vera Zdravkovich, PGCC, Gloria John, CCBC-C, Michael Kiphart, MICUA, Ross Leisten, SSU, Connie Cox, MHEC, Tom Topping, CCC, Gene Hall, AC, Clara Adams, MSU, Eddie Boyd, UMES, Marilyn Demorest, UMBC, Gaylen Bradley, UMBI, Gena Glickman, MCAD, Mike Keller, Floyd Cumberbatch, MC-R, Richard Rembold, CSC, Mary Ellen Hrutka, UMUC, Roy Hopkins SMC, Jerry Isaac, BSU, Edward Crook, CCC. Martha Matlick, HCC, Robin Spaid, HCC, Tricia Casey-Whiteman, AACC, Ray Hoy, CC, Denny Gulick, UMCP, Chris Helfrid, FCC

Invited Guests: Michael J. Keller, MHEC, Maureen Jackson, MHEC, Nancy Shapiro, USM K-16 Project

  1. Speech Communication
  2. Materials were distributed for faculty review, discussion of the materials is scheduled for the Feb. meeting.

    Discussion: Related to the discipline-based meetings for setting standards, Nancy Shapiro, K-16 would like to provide framework and standards for student learning outcomes, as way of informing K-12 of expectations. She restated the goal of the K-16 partnership to bring K-12 and postsecondary into alignment. For example, the "C" paper standards were very useful for K-12 as they work on school reform. Gloria John stated that the general education "category" groups need to be carried further to develop outcomes statements. It was suggested that the groups be called together again, to define outcomes at the detail level of disciplines, not just categories, e.g., speech, English composition, sociology not just social sciences. Shapiro pointed out that the outcomes of general education parallel the movement towards assessment of competencies in the arts & sciences for teacher education students.

    A question, or point of clarification, how do the reports from the category groups fit in? That work needs to be considered as we look at teacher education arts & sciences assessment. Jo Williams suggested that each CAO meeting include 1 to 2 discipline groups reports. Nancy Shapiro and Gloria John were asked to serve as a "repository" for reports and as conduit to have people report to the CAOs. Connie Cox expressed her willingness to work with them in coordination meetings and reports. Denny Gulick will provide a list of membership of the groups. He pointed out that the Math group has included secondary representatives.

    A suggestion was made that a template for these reports, like the core learning goals, might be helpful. It might serve as a way to help focus the groups. It was noted that the template should be general enough so it is not prescriptive. However, the template should not be too general. The Project 2061 model is based on benchmarks. It was suggested that this might be an appropriate model. It was reiterated that it was important that the groups be given clear direction as to what we would like to see happen. It might be helpful to think of the template as a format for report as opposed to an "intellectual template."

  3. Guiding Principles: Grandfathering of Certificate Students, Connie Cox
  4. Michael Kiphart, Ray Hoy, and Connie Cox presented draft language to be considered by group. Discussion: Suggestion that catalog requirements terminology be added. Clarification re: who defines? Motion to approve language as presented. Motion seconded. All in favor, no abstentions. New language will be incorporated into the Guiding Principles document, disseminated and revised on the WWW site.

  5. Guidelines for Articulated Degrees
  6. Statewide Bachelorís in Health Sciences group appointed faculty work group to define content of the upper-division core requirements. The work group will present their findings at the Dec. 2nd meeting of the full committee. Next steps will be to determine which tracks will be offered, signing of memorandum of understanding and program approval by MHEC.

    At the last meeting of the Instructional Deans, additional proposals for the Bachelorís in professional/technical studies were discussed. Information science and engineering technology appear to be the next areas of exploration, with continuing work in teacher education, and the possibility that two more program areas would be proposed. MHEC Faculty Advisory Council, and USM CUSF have reviewed the Bachelorís of Professional/Technical Studies program proposal. Both groups have endorsed the proposal.

  7. Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Report, Maureen Jackson, Mike Keller
  8. Copies of the report were distributed. A summary of the report and several examples of innovative programs ( MSU, PGCC, UB, SMC, UMES, AACC, FCC) were provided.

    A suggestion was made that MHEC provide the names and phone numbers of those responsible for providing the information for the report. The recommendation was noted and will be acted upon.

  9. Placement Testing

This is one of the areas of great interest to the K-16 group. The issue of placement testing is critical to understanding expectations and standards. The Committee on Remediation and community college placement testing committee have been working on this issue. It sets up common placement expectations for students. If the group thinks this a good direction, we may wish to have a subcommittee review the issue. MSDE would encourage, and be interested in or pursuing this. It benefits the local school systems who like to have as much information as possible. Denny Gulick believes that the math group will be moving in that direction. Ray Hoy indicated that the community college placement testing committee did invite four year reps., and a few have attended. Chesapeake College is working with five counties, PASS (Accuplacer) to be administered during the sophomore year. Other counties are working with the community colleges and the College Board in similar fashion. Bob Hampton expressed interest in becoming involved. Pilot paid by ACT and College Board, St. Maryís different missions take into account, FSU needs written material, share with faculty. Is there a report available for review? Gartner suggested that the documentation be given to faculty to review for content area. Distribute materials widely, but then form small working group to examine issues. Recommendation could be considered in April. Mike Keller indicated that MHEC is keenly interested in and supportive of standardization of placement. Ray Hoy will talk to Suzanne Beal, Community Colleges, co-chair, Bob Hampton volunteered to be co-chair, Mary Ellen Hrutka indicated that UMUC needs to be represented, Roy Hopkins, SMC, also expressed interest in participating.

  1. Next Meeting

February meeting: the 10th or 17th are being considered. The meeting will be held over MDLN at 4 sites. Sites to be identified.