Intersegmental CAO Meeting

February 10, 1999

Anne Arundel Community College

Coppin State College

Hagerstown Community College


Welcome

Jo Williams called the meeting to order. The minutes of the November, 1998 meeting were approved.

Members Present:

Anne Arundel Community College: Jo Williams, CCCC, Elizabeth Murray, USMH, Trish Casey-Whiteman, AACC, Bob Rice, MSDE, Anne Nedd, BSU, Virginia Guilford, BSU, Floyd Cumberbatch, Michael Kiphardt, MICUA, Mary Ellen Hrutka, UMUC, Vera Zradovich, PGCC, Eddie Boyd, UMES, Connie Cox, MHEC, Invited Guest: Isa Engleberg, PGCCI (MD Communications Association)

Coppin State College: Richard Rembold, CSC, Teri Hollander, USMH, Gloria John, CCBC, Clara Adams, MSU, Gena Glickman, MCAD, Marilyn Demorest, UMBC, Florence Agbonyitor, BCCC, Tom Topping, CCC, Jane Turnbull, MHEC - FAC (CCBC), Jim Ball, CCC, M.J. McMahon, TU, Denny Gulick, UMCP, Irvin Brown, UB

Hagerstown Community College: Gene Hall, AC, Rebecca Cool, AC, Martha Matlick, HCC, Gaylen Bradley, UMBI, Lillian Mitchell, GCC, Mike Parsons, HCC, Ron Koeppel, HCC, Bob Carson, HCC, Mike Martin, HCC, Mary Gartner, FSU, Suzanne Beal, FCC, Frank Peto, RESA, Anna Maria Gamez, UMBI , Invited Guest: Mike Wallinger, FSU

  1. Standards for General Education Speech Communication Courses in Maryland Higher Education Institutions, Isa Engleberg, PGCC, M. Wallinger, FSU
  2. Mike Wallinger provided an overview of the process for the development of the standards. The work of the group began in 1997. Isa Engleberg, as chair of the Maryland Communications Association, led the development of minimum competencies. The "Standards for General Education Speech Communication Courses" document was distributed at the November, 1998 meeting of the CAOs. (See 11//24/98 Minutes for discussion.) The "Standards" represent a set of competencies consistent with the best research and statements of the national association and the Maryland general education policy. The "Standards" were developed by representatives from Maryland public colleges and universities, primarily chairs of communications departments and programs.

    Isa Engleberg presented a synopsis of the "Standards" document. The definition of communication was drawn from the national literature. It is recommended that at least 80% of the 15 core components be included in any speech communication course that is included in general education. The list of commonly used titles of courses was provided to give examples of the types of courses that are currently offered that may be applicable towards general education. Inclusion in general education of similarly titled courses should only occur when a minimum 80% of the core components are present in the course content. Specific competencies for the core components are delineated. The table on page 7 of the document illustrates the convergence of the Arts and Humanities competencies and the Communication Competencies. A list of other commonly occurring speech communications course tiles that may be included in the Interdisciplinary and Emerging Issues area is included along with the statement that there is an expectation that the courses "meet the rigorous criteria set forth by the CAO group.

    Discussion: Modification of some of the language in the document would provide clarification of the intent. Ref. General Education Course Areas – …should qualify will be changed to could qualify.

    Congratulations and appreciation was expressed for the work of the communications group. There was some discussion as to the endorsement of the document. Although it was distributed at the November, 1998 meeting and the group was asked to gather comment, thee was some feeling that ample time be given to gather additional comment. A motion was made to endorse. The motion was seconded and the vote was taken. The motion passed. There was agreement that before inclusion of the document in the "Guiding Principles" the modifications discussed and any further comment would be included as appropriate. Any additional comment gathered will be discussed at the April meeting.

  3. Report from MHEC, Connie Cox
    1. Discipline Group Meetings:
    2. There is a need to involve the discipline groups in teacher education. Nancy Shapiro has met with the English committee. Gloria John is also involved with the groups. Get the groups together again, not only in general education context, but as central to the enterprise. Denny Gulick, Mike Kiphart, Laura Slavin, Nancy Shapiro, Gloria John formed a committee to work with MHEC and the CAOs. The CAOs are encouraged to be involved.

      Discussion: There was a request that we look at how the discipline groups and the K-16 connection relate. A question arose as to which disciplines should be called together first. Gloria John will develop a proposed list of disciplines and send it out on e-mail. It was mentioned that other discipline groups are meeting – computer science, computer engineering, information science, criminal justice. These are groups that have been formed through their own professional associations or collaborative efforts. Mathematics continues to meet as well. A request was made that MHEC and USM provide a summary of what discipline groups have met, are meeting, a point of contact, etc., so institutions are fully aware of what’s going on.

      A question was raised regarding the minimum grade required and scores/grades for "non-traditional" credits (e.g., CLEP, AP) for applicability towards general education. It was recalled that the discipline groups were to be asked to review this issue when developing the general education standards/statement of expectations for their discipline. It was suggested that a standard charge and perhaps the use of a template be given to each discipline group prior to their meeting. Gloria John will work to develop a template. Included will be the charge to address the minimum grade issue, non-traditional credits, and teacher education shortage areas.

    3. Teacher Education Update:
    4. At the first meeting of the teacher education working group, the focus was on ways to improve articulation. There was consensus that models be looked at to certify competencies, involve discipline groups. It was noted that the group needed to become familiar with NCATE standards, particularly for the 2 year colleges. Virginia Pulato, MSDE, spoke to the PRAXIS issue, specifically the proposal to use PRAXIS I as part of the requirements for entrance to teacher candidacy. MSDE was in the process of asking for feedback by addressing various groups, including the working group, MCCID, and the deans/directors of education. PRAXIS I tests for general education competencies. Since general education is largely completed in the first two years of study, it falls in the purview of community colleges. PRAXIS II, which will become part of the requirement for teacher certification, also addresses courses in the arts & sciences areas, some of which may also be completed in the first two years of study. Since studies have shown that 60% start at community colleges, there is a recognition of community colleges as a very important partner in this process. It was suggested that it might be helpful to develop position statement from the CAOs to be shared with MSDE. An overarching question is, "What does teacher education look like through the four years of the program? NCATE, PRAXIS, The Re-design of Teacher Education document, MHEC discussion of teacher shortages, Certification of competencies in arts & sciences in pedagogy and disciplines, all need to closely reviewed in context of what is happening in Maryland in terms of education.

    5. Digital Library Task Force:

    Attempt to get state assistance in licensing some digital databases. Asked for grant through but didn’t get it. The task force is now working on proposal to MHEC, working with legislators to get bills, and inclusion in the governor's supplemental budget. The task force will likely submit a proposal to the governor for state funding next legislative session. A statewide network would require having to bring all campuses up to base level technology. Some community colleges don’t have the capability to access a statewide digital library yet. As the proposal is finalized info/presentation will be made available to this group.

  4. Legislative Task Force on USM (from MHEC Education Policy Committee, 1/19/99):
  5. As of yesterday, no legislation has yet been drafted. Some of the significant recommendations: all institutions retained within system, but give council of presidents more authority and autonomy, and relief from state procurement guidelines. There would also be support to become a public corporation. Another recommendation is to form a committee to study foundation activities. In addition, MHEC would not disagree on any line items in capital budgets; MHEC authority over mission statements approval would no longer be required but MHEC would continue to be responsible for ensuring consistency with the state plan, but plan needs to be revised. MHEC would not approve or review programs, with sunset clause after three years—there has been concern expressed over equity in other segments. MHEC would continue to be involved in low productivity programs, but only to document not to discontinue programs. Also the college prep intervention program would be re-established.

     

    Discussion MJ recommends that the task force document be distributed to all CAOs so that they can understand the impact on other segments. Faculty governance leaders received an executive summary, but the full report is more helpful. Governor will have administrative/omnibus bill, that probably contain the recommendations of task force.

  6. Bachelor’s of Technical/Professional Studies: definition of a cohort programs can be developed by individual institutions and/or groups of institutions. This degree can be offered by four-year institution. An MOU between the participating institutions would be be submitted to MHEC and establish the program area of the degree.
  7. Statement of Expectations for English Composition
  8. The statement will be sent out, and a vote will be taken at the next meeting to decide whether or not it should be included with guiding principles.

  9. CAO – K-16 Connection, Jo Williams
  10. Jo Williams has been asked to the CAO group on the K-16 Standards, Competencies, Assessments committee.

  11. Nominating Committee
  12. A nominating committee for next year’s chairs was established. Gene Hall and Mary Ellen Hrutka will present a slate of nominees at the April 14 meeting.

  13. Next Meeting
  14. April 14 at University of Maryland, College Park.

  15. Other Business

Items to include in upcoming meetings. Disability substitution, Career Connections/workforce development. Statement of Expectations for English Composition, Discipline group reports.

Adjournment at 12:05.