text-only page produced automatically by LIFT Text
Transcoder Skip all navigation and go to page contentSkip top navigation and go to directorate navigationSkip top navigation and go to page navigation
National Science Foundation
Office of the Director (OD)
design element
Return to CEOSE Home Page
 


CEOSE Meeting Minutes
February 2-3, 2006

Meeting Site
National Science Foundation (NSF) - Arlington, Virginia 22230

Members Present
Prof. Ashok Agrawal, St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley, St. Louis, MO
Ms. Sandra Begay-Campbell, Sandia National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM
Dr. Luis Echegoyen, CEOSE Vice Chair, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Dr. Wesley Harris, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Dr. Beverly Karplus Hartline, Delaware State University, Dover, DE
Dr. J.K. Haynes, Division of Science and Mathematics, Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA
Dr. Joyce Bennett Justus, University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA
Dr. Robert L. Lichter, Merrimack Consultants, LLC, Great Barrington, MA
Dr. Samuel L. Myers, Jr., CEOSE Chair, HHH Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Dr. Germán R. Núñez, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX
Dr. Willie Pearson, Jr., Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA

Member Absent

Dr. Marshall G. Jones, GE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY

Executive Liaison/CEOSE Executive Secretary

Dr. Margaret E. M. Tolbert, Senior Advisor, Office of International and Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation (NSF)

OIA/NSF Primary Support Staff Member

Mr. Lawrence E. Upson, Program and Technology Specialist, Office of International and Integrative Activities/NSF

Non-Members Who Presented Oral or Written Statements and/or participated in the Discussions

Dr. Morris L. Aizenman, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences/NSF
Dr. Bernice T. Anderson, OAD/D Directorate for Education and Human Resources/NSF
Dr. Beverly P. Baker, CNS/Directorate for Computer and Information in Sciences and Engineering/NSF
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation
Dr. Henry N. Blount, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences/NSF
Ms. Ruth Brannon, NIDRR/U.S. Department of Education
Ms. Judit Camacho, Executive Director of SACNAS
Dr. Kellina Craig-Henderson, BCS/Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences/NSF
Ms. Carmen Cromartie, Data Captioner, The Reporter Inc.
Dr. Ted Conway, HRD/Directorate for Education and Human Resources/NSF
Dr. Jessie A. DeAro, HRD/Directorate for Education and Human Resources/NSF
Dr. Connie Kubo Della-Piana, OIA/Office of the Director/NSF
Dr. Machi F. Dilworth, DBI/Directorate for Biological Sciences/NSF
Dr . Juan E. Figueroa , OII/Directorate for Engineering/NSF
Ms. Sandra Gartrell, Data Captioner, The Reporter Inc.
Ms. Tracy Gorman, Office of the Director/NSF
Ms. Pamela B. Green, BD/Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management/NSF
Dr. Chrisanti Haretos, Office of Science and Technology Policy/The White House
Dr. Susan T. Hill, SRS/Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences/NSF
Ms. Marguerite Keller, Data Captioner, The Reporter Inc.
Dr. Sharon M. Locke, ESIE/Directorate for Education and Human Resources/NSF
Dr. Carmelle A. McKayle, HRD/Directorate for Education and Human Resources/NSF
Dr. Lawrence Norris, National Society of Black Physicists
Dr. Kathleen M. O’Hara, CCF/Directorate for Computer and Information in Sciences and Engineering/NSF
Dr. John Pascarelli, AAAS/NSF - OIB/Directorate for Biological Sciences/NSF
Dr. Nathaniel G. Pitts, OIA/Office of the Director/NSF
Ms. Consuelo Roberts, OEOP/Office of the Director/NSF
Dr. Craig R. Robinson, BD/Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management/NSF
Dr. Celeste Rohlfing, CHE/ Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences/NSF
Mr. Brian J. Siems, Booz Allen Hamilton
Dr. Silvia Spengler, IIS/Directorate for Computer and Information in Sciences and Engineering/NSF
Ms. Marilyn J. Suiter, HRD/Directorate for Education and Human Resources/NSF
Dr. Judith S. Sunley, OAD/Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences/NSF
Dr. Donald Thompson, OAD/Directorate for Education and Human Resources/NSF
Dr. Elizabeth VanderPutten, REC/Directorate for Education and Human Resources/NSF
Dr. Mark L. Weiss, Office of Science and Technology Policy/The White House
Dr. Thomas L. Windham, Office of the Director/NSF

The Meeting Thursday, February 2, 2006

Dr. Myers called the meeting to order at 8:40 A.M. with eleven CEOSE members and guests present. He gave each ad hoc subcommittee a charge, and he stated his vision for CEOSE. His proposed priority is to understand the intersections of race/ethnicity, gender, and disability through answers to questions like the following: What is the nature of the problem? Why is there a problem? What are limits or opportunities posed? How can CEOSE be more effective? Can this be done through its commitment to institutional transformation, the push for assessment and evaluation, efforts in communication, and studies of community colleges and other institutions? The ultimate goal is to obtain a National Academy of Science-type commissioned report on broadening the participation of the CEOSE target groups and their underrepresentation in science and engineering. Dr. Justus, Dr. Harris, and Ms. Begay-Campbell, as well as others, expressed support for a comprehensive report on a subset of groups in the CEOSE mandate . Dr. Myers stated that based on our reports, we know a lot about women, less about minorities, and even less about persons with disabilities. It is our responsibility to get the information that we need. Dr. Pearson emphasized the need for a study of policies and practices on underrepresented groups across all agencies. Obtaining data on sectors other than educational institutions is important.

Following Dr. Myers’ opening statement on his vision for CEOSE and the charge to each ad hoc subcommittee, he introduced Dr. Echegoyen as the new Vice Chair of CEOSE, whose term will be one year. Following that announcement, each meeting attendee introduced himself/herself. Introductory details on CEOSE members are summarized in a separate document. The meeting agenda was accepted with few changes. The October 2005 meeting minutes were confirmed as certified by Dr. Lichter, who was the CEOSE Chair at the time of that meeting.

In his report on the OSTP/NSF/CEOSE Multi-Federal Agency Meeting of December 20, 2005, Dr. Lichter, immediate past chair, based his comments on the fact that broadening participation cuts across all Federal agencies. One reason for reaching out to other agencies is for purposes of collaboration and leveraging on components of the CEOSE mandate. Drs. John H. Marburger, III, who is the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Dr. Kathie Olsen, the Deputy Director of NSF, served as chairs of the December meeting. More than fifteen Federal agencies and offices were represented at the meeting. The discussion was focused on broadening participation. RECOMMENDATION: It was recommended that CEOSE take the lead in the cross-Federal agency meeting. One step is to send a CEOSE liaison to NSTC meetings, which has a subcommittee on education and the workforce. Another action is to seek OSTP and NSF guidance on how the multi-Federal agency link should be designed and implemented. Later in the day, Dr. Weiss commented on the multi-Federal agency meeting. A number of agency representatives who participated in the meeting commented that broadening participation is of concern to them; however, their foci were pertinent to scientific concerns. He encouraged collaborating with the other Federal agencies on matters of joint concern. RECOMMENDATION: It was recommended that Dr. Weiss raise at the Office of Science and Technology Policy the matter of collaboration among Federal agencies on the topic of broadening participation in science, mathematics, engineering, and education. In particular, he is asked to check on the feasibility of the formation of a separate interagency subcommittee to address the topic.

Ms. Brannon of NIDRR and Dr. Conway of NSF spoke on the topic of “Representation in S&E of Persons with Disabilities.” Ms. Brannon focused her comments on the mission and activities of NIDRR while Dr. Conway focused on persons with disabilities nationwide. Twenty percent of the United States population is disabled. Yet, the disability community is approximately 50 years behind the ethnic and gender communities in getting the government and the general population to understand and address its issues. The disabilities data are somewhat deceiving since they do not include information on when the disabilities of given persons surfaced. The disabilities program at NSF does a great deal with a small amount of money. Dr. Ted Conway provided an inspiring and moving account of the barriers facing scientists and engineers who have disabilities. He also described the differences between visible and invisible disabilities and discussed various challenges that these groups face. Both speakers advised that tiered mentoring is very important. Efforts to distinguish the needs of different minority groups with disabilities are being made, and the misdiagnosis of disabilities is a recognized problem in minority groups. The use of assistive technologies makes disabilities less imposing. At the U.S. Department of Education, disability research centered on specific education issues is addressed in the Institute for Educational Science. According to Ms. Brannon, a good source of information on persons with disabilities is the white paper, “Persons with Disabilities in Science, Engineering, and Technology” (a white paper prepared for the Commission on Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development), by Dr. Katherine D. Seelman while she was Director of NIDRR/U.S. Department of Education.

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of NSF, met with CEOSE members and discussed topics pertinent to broadening participation and NSF. While he could not provide details on the NSF FY 2007 budget request due to it being embargoed, he did make comments on other topics. Information on the budget will be available next week, and there will be a telephone conference call to discuss the budget with the Chairs of NSF advisory committees on Tuesday, February 7 th. Dr. Bement advised that broadening participation is a specific priority of NSF and that he appreciated having had the opportunity to discuss this and other topics, including assessment and evaluation with Drs. Myers and Echegoyen during his meeting with them on February 1st. He talked about the work that NSF is sponsoring that has relevance to persons with disabilities and suggested a compilation of that information. He encouraged the link with other Federal agencies in addressing broadening participation. He also commented on the NSF Strategic Plan and assured members that their interest would be represented in the next version of the plan. In reference to the report on Minority Serving Institutions (MSI), Dr. Bement advised that it will be better refined. Prior to the CEOSE meeting, Drs. Bement and Lichter exchanged letters that include CEOSE’s concerns about the MSI report, as well as other topics.

Drs. Lichter, Pearson, and Hartline presented details on the February 18 th AAAS annual conference session on Title IX and the February 19 th AAAS session on broadening participation. They invited all committee members and NSF staff to participate. Prof. Agrawal extended an invitation to CEOSE members who will be AAAS conference attendees to have Sunday dinner with him and some of his colleagues.

Dr. Robinson presented to the committee details on the NSF Strategic Plan and the planned revision. NSF is editing the 2003-2008 plan, which will be replaced by the one for 2006 to 2011 by September 2006. A total of 35,000 surveys were distributed. Dr. Robinson presented to CEOSE members a summary of the 200 comments received in response to the surveys. There is still time for the submission of comments (i.e., what is missing and what needs to be revised) on the plan. The National Science Board has prepared the 2020 vision for NSF. This is the basis for the revised version of the plan. Diversity is covered in the plan; however, comments from CEOSE members are welcome to facilitate better communication about broadening participation. Contents of the CEOSE decennial and biennial reports to Congress (CEOSE 04-01) will be taken into consideration in the revised version of the plan. Dr. Robinson advised that the new version of the draft plan will be available for review at the March meeting of the National Science Board. ACTION: NSF will provide CEOSE members with a copy of the revised version of the NSF Strategic Plan in March; then at its June meeting, CEOSE will draft its response. At that point, comments from CEOSE members, as well as other persons, will be incorporated into the plan.

Dr. Thompson set the stage for the discussion on evaluation and assessment. He advised that evaluations are conducted to enable planning, to determine why things happen, to learn and explain, to advance, to sustain, and to monitor. One can use evaluation results to commission new and different approaches to evaluate cross-directorate efforts, coordinate Federal reporting requirements, synthesize and communicate findings to various stakeholders, etc. He presented an evaluation timeline, and discussed it in relationship to GPRA, the Committee of Visitors, and PART (Program Assessment Ranking Tool). In her presentation, Dr. Anderson focused on three programs: Faculty Early Career Development Program, Math and Science Partnership Program, and the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program. When there is a negative result from a program evaluation, the program can be reoriented or other actions taken. Dr. VanderPutten focused on the Career Program in her presentation. As the Career Program was evaluated, Dr. VanderPutten presented several questions for consideration (i.e., Are the awardees doing excellent research? Are they adequately integrating their research with education? Have they made a difference in their departments? What difference does having a Career award make?). The program proved successful based on the review questions and criteria. Questions from CEOSE members pointed to the methodologies used by NSF to conduct evaluations and the scope of initiatives that are subject to review and assessment. Dr. Anderson discussed methodological considerations in conducting EHR program evaluations – including issues of randomized trials and construction of control groups or comparison groups. The presenters noted that their focus was on evaluation within EHR and not on evaluation within directorates (e.g. evaluation of broadening participation in funded projects).

Following closing comments by Dr. Myers, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 P.M.

Friday, February 3, 2006

Dr. Myers called the meeting to order at 8:35 A.M. He presented the CEOSE ad hoc subcommittee structure, appointed the Chairs, and named other members. A brief summary follows:

  • Widening Creative Pathways to STEM via the Role of Community Colleges and Other Institutions (Prof. Agrawal; Members: Ms. Begay-Campbell, Dr. Jones, Dr. Núñez, Dr. Echegoyen, and Dr. Haynes)
  • Institutional Transformation (Dr. Justus, Chair; Members: Dr. Hartline, Dr. Lichter, and Dr. Myers)
  • Assessment and Evaluation (Dr. Harris, Chair; Other Members to Be Appointed)
  • Communications (Dr. Echegoyen, Chair; Members: Ms. Begay-Campbell and Dr. Lichter)
  • Biennial Report to Congress (Dr. Núñez, Chair; Members: Dr. Hartline, Dr. Myers, and TBD)
  • NSF request to the National Research Council, RE: Broadening Participation Efforts at Federal Agencies (Dr. Harris, Chair; Members: Dr. Pearson and Dr. Myers)

APPROVAL: After combining the NSF request to NRC with the Assessment and Evaluation Subcommittee, the structure and subcommittee memberships were approved by CEOSE. The Communications Subcommittee will address the incorporation of salient parts of the CEOSE report into the NSF Strategic Plan.

The first four subcommittees listed above held meetings following the approval of the structure and membership. During that period, the subcommittees were to identify goals, objectives, timelines, and actions.

Subcommittee Reports:

Widening Creative Pathways to STEM Subcommittee - Prof. Agrawal, Reporter & Subcommittee Chair

Objectives:

  • To make recommendations to NSF for programs and activities that will result in an increase in the number of STEM students transferring from community colleges, including Tribal colleges, to 4-year colleges;
  • To make recommendations to NSF for programs and activities that will result in a greater number of community college and Tribal college students enrolling in graduate programs; and
  • To communicate to the public the value and role of community colleges and Tribal colleges in providing educational opportunities for STEM students.

Focus Areas:

  • Awareness – Plan and implement a site visit and a mini-symposium
  • Data Collection – Sources will include NAE reports, SRS data, etc.
  • Implementation of Programs and Activities – Two-year cycle

Activities Planned:

Committee Meetings – Videoconferences will be held in the third weeks of March and April 2006 to plan the following:

  • A mini symposium involving community college representatives to provide information on community colleges to CEOSE (June 1, 2006)
    Suggested Categories of Speakers:
    • History, Issues, and Challenges at community colleges - President of AACC
    • Student Data on Community Colleges, Clifford Adelman – U.S. Department of Education
    • NAE Reports on Enhancing Engineering at community colleges and Tribal Colleges – NAE staff member
    • Success of Bridges Programs - Director of NIH Bridges Program
    • Faculty Members’ Roles and Activities at Community colleges – A faculty member
    • Community college students – Leading researcher
    CEOSE members are requested to provide additional suggestions. To enable adequate discussion, the number of speakers will be limited to four for the 2.5-to 3-hour mini symposium.
  • Site visit to a community college (Fall 2006) Fall CEOSE meeting at Miami Dade, Maricopa, or St. Louis …
  • Request of SRS data compilation on STEM activities at community colleges (begin immediately – to be completed by January 2007).
    Data to include:
    • Characteristics and number of students who enter community colleges intending to transfer to 4-year colleges (aggregate and STEM areas… disaggregate this data on the basis of underrepresented population);
    • Graduation and transfer rates (aggregate and STEM); and
    • Percentage of students who received Master’s and Ph.D. degrees (aggregate and STEM).
  • Preparation of a report on the degree of success of Bridge Programs in facilitating transfer of students from community colleges to Baccalaureate degrees and beyond (contact NIH for data availability immediately - to be completed by June 2007).
  • Preparation of a concept paper (based on assessment of data) on Models of Research and Education Centers at community colleges for a new program initiative at NSF (to be brought to the full CEOSE committee for discussions at June 2007 meeting).
  • Recommendation that NSF implement specific programs at community colleges that will result in increasing the percentage of students pursuing STEM programs. - Utilize the findings and recommendations of NAE reports on Pre-Engineering Programs at community colleges, to determine how the recommendations of the report can be expanded to other areas in STEM.
  • Recommendation that NSF implement specific programs at Tribal Colleges that will result in increasing the percentage of Native Americans pursuing STEM programs. - Utilize the findings of NAE report on Pre-Engineering Programs at Tribal Colleges, to determine how the recommendations of the report can be expanded to other areas in STEM.
  • Recommendation to OSTP to promote the value and recognition of community colleges amongst all federal agencies, much like NSF has done now.
  • Recommendation to NSF a program, which will allow senior faculty members from universities to work as visiting faculty members at CCs.

Creating Pathways from Minority Serving Baccalaureate Institutions (NSF’s traditional definition)

Objective and Recommendations:

To evaluate NSF programs and institutional activities directed at STEM students at MSIs with the objective of making recommendations for programs and activities that will result in greater number of MSI students enrolling in and completing graduate degree programs.

RECOMMENDATION: Subcommittee members recommend that an evaluation be made of NSF programs and activities designed for MSIs. After reviewing the resulting information, the subcommittee will recommend programs and activities for strengthening efforts to produce more students who enroll in graduate programs. RECOMMENDATION: In parallel with what was mentioned earlier for community colleges, the subcommittee recommends communicating to public the value and roles of MSIs in providing educational opportunities for STEM students.

RECOMMENDATION: The subcommittee suggests that a program, which will allow senior faculty members from universities to work as visiting faculty members at community colleges, be established. Senior faculty members are ideal for this type of program since there should not be a problem pertinent to the loss of rank or tenure with a detail at a community college.

This subcommittee has a challenge in the identification of community colleges. It was suggested that the focus be on community colleges that hold membership in AACC.

Institutional Transformation Subcommittee - Dr. Justus, Reporter & Subcommittee Chair

Since the telephone conference call held December 6, 2005, continuous discussion on institutional transformation has been held. Bringing together a select group of people who are successful at every level of institutional transformation to discuss their strategies and successes is the goal. This is suggested for implementation as follows:

  • Hold a meeting prior to the mini-group meeting to review the process and the development and implementation plans and discuss the desired results.
  • Hold a small meeting of approximately 20 people who will discuss the topic thoroughly.
  • At this meeting, there should be representation from universities as well as industry.
  • Preliminary information and a questionnaire on institutional transformation will be distributed prior to the meeting.
  • The questions on the questionnaire will be revisited after the meeting.
  • Dr. Indira Nair is a member of this subcommittee.
  • Timeline
    • Two telephone conference calls will be held between now and the June meeting date.
    • The one-day mini-meeting is planned for September 2006.
    • The budget and full proposal are to be submitted to CEOSE for NSF consideration at a later date

Dr. Myers advised that all members of CEOSE should be present at the institutional transformation meeting that is being planned.

Assessment and Evaluation/NRC Silver Bullet Subcommittee – Dr. Harris, Reporter & Subcommittee Chair

Evaluation:

  • Acknowledged progress within EHR
  • Encourage continuous improvement - Develop and maintain state-of-the-art architectures for program and portfolio evaluation

Assessment:

  • Need for clear definition of assessment
  • Need for tools/protocols
  • Focus on end goals of societal impacts/benefits

Broader impacts/broadening participation, longitudinal studies

NRC [Silver Bullet]:

  • Focus of policy, practices, evaluation, assessment, metrics, consistency, quality of data, reliability, verification, staff, enforcement
  • Required inclusion of disability, gender, ethnicity/race across all Federal agencies

Next Steps:

  • NSF buy-in
  • Development of statement of work, budget, and timeline for NRC

Communications Subcommittee - Dr. Echegoyen, Reporter & Subcommittee Chair

Dr. Echegoyen has been asked by the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Advisory Committee to coordinate the presentation of issues on minority representation to its advisory committee. This is scheduled for April 6-7, 2006. Dr. Echegoyen volunteered to do the same at a CEOSE meeting. He requested that members send him creative ideas for use and names of possible speakers for this activity. One idea is to use skits to help the audience concretize the concepts. Videotaping the activity was suggested.

As an action item suggested by Ms. Begay-Campbell, the Communications Subcommittee is responsible for assuring the incorporation of CEOSE information into the NSF Strategic Plan. While this subcommittee will lead this effort, all members of CEOSE should be involved.

Biennial Report to Congress Subcommittee - Dr. Núñez and Dr. Hartline, Reporters

This subcommittee had met informally and will provide a thorough report at the June meeting. ACTION: Copies of a previous Biennial Report to Congress will be provided to both Drs. Núñe z and Hartline.

Dr. Myers advised that given the importance of the work of the subcommittees, additional meeting are planned for each. APPROVAL: CEOSE members approved the acceptance of all subcommittee reports.

Other Business

Concern was expressed about the requirement that the presenter, Ms. Brannon, from the U.S. Department of Education had to receive prior approval from that agency before she could use slides during her presentation to the CEOSE meeting.

RECOGNITION APPROVAL: Dr. Harris moved and Dr. Hartline, plus several other members, seconded the full recognition of the contributions of Dr. Pearson to the scientific community and his recent appointment as a AAAS Fellow.

RECOGNITION APPROVAL: CEOSE acknowledged with sadness the January 30, 2006 death of Mrs. Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She was recognized as a person of strength who represented all that is good in the modern civil rights movement.

ACTION: Several CEOSE Advisory Committee Liaisons will be appointed at a later date. The CEOSE Liaison (Dr. Núñe z) to the ISE Advisory Committee has been named; however, appointments need to be made to the GPRA, Cyberinfrastructure, CISE, SBE, and EHR advisory committees. Two new potential members of CEOSE have been identified. Additional members will be appointed at a later date.

Oral reports by CEOSE Liaisons to NSF advisory committees were not given. However, copies of those reports were included in the meeting binders.

Future CEOSE Meetings: June 1-2, 2006 at NSF and October 17-18, 2006 at NSF

The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

CERTIFICATION OF THE ACCURACY OF THE CEOSE MEETING MINUTES

Dr. Samuel L. Myers, Jr., who is Chair of the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, approved the meeting minutes on February 15, 2006, by e-mail message to Dr. Margaret E.M. Tolbert, CEOSE Executive Secretary and NSF Executive Liaison to CEOSE.

 


Email this pagePrint this page
Back to Top of page