Joe Tougas, Kevin Francis, Ulrike Krotscheck

After a week-long break, Nancy Murray presented her plan for the second week—to work in the groups we established at the end of the first week to develop specific proposals that address some of the problems that emerged in our discussions.

We began with reports from each of the groups (transcript, advising, curriculum) that met at the end of our previous week. The notes below reflect the discussions that took place during Friday afternoon of the first week and Monday afternoon.

Joe reported for the TRANSCRIPT group. His group started from the assumption that the six expectations are a good reflection of what we want to be reflected in the transcript.

We finished our work today with six items on our “to do” list for week 2:

1)   Support opportunities for the faculty in general to read and reflect on transcripts.

2)   Work on model transcripts showing good practices, as well as “status quo transcripts” to use for faculty analysis and reflection.

3)   Articulate the differences between the “new format” transcript and the cumulative portfolio, including their different structures, audiences, uses and motivations.

4)   Collect ideas about how transcripts serve the needs of different campuses and programs, and of different kinds of students.

5)   Inform ourselves about current policies, practices and initiatives elsewhere at the college regarding transcripts/evaluations.

6)   Decide whether to recommend making specific transcript features mandatory (e.g. summative self-eval.)

We also need to share ideas with the Advising Working Group on ways to use improved advising to support student work on improved transcripts.

Here are additional details I noted about our discussion of each of these items:

1) Support opportunities for the faculty in general to read and reflect on transcripts.

Nancy Murray has already set aside time at the faculty retreat in Sept. for this, so we should collaborate with her in structuring and promoting this activity. We can anticipate some faculty resistance to the idea of reading and making judgments about (critiquing) one another’s evaluations, in spite of the fact that this is common practice in 5 year reviews, new faculty orientation, etc. We should prepare clear explanations about why student identities are so carefully protected while faculty identities are not.

2) Work on model transcripts showing good practices, as well as “status quo transcripts” to use for faculty analysis and reflection.

Model transcripts could illustrate faculty evaluations that focused on the Six Expectations, using the “anchor points” Laura C. developed. They could contain examples of summative, mid-career, and/or milestone evaluations, evaluations of “capstone” experiences or culminating projects, and “umbrella evaluations” for students who took multiple courses, modules or contracts during a particular quarter or year.  We should aim to demonstrate how shorter, well-structured transcripts with strong student voice and visible reflection of the Six Expectations could serve student and college purposed better than many current transcripts do.

Besides the currently used random and redacted transcripts, do we want to gather some transcripts from especially successful alums? Might we want to construct some composite transcripts to illustrate specific kinds of serious problems without compromising the identities of individual faculty or students?

We should look carefully at the model evaluations that are currently being used by Academic Advising and the Writing Center to coach students on writing self-evals.      We should also consult colleagues who have taught classes on writing summative evals.

3) Articulate the differences between the “new format” transcript and the cumulative portfolio, including their different structures, audiences, uses and motivations.

Recognizing that evaluations have been used to serve two conflicting roles—a) reflecting on and consolidating learning and b) communicating student performance to an external audience—we talked about having the transcript structured explicitly for the external audience while encouraging (requiring?) students to keep a portfolio with reflective writing, work samples, and other items, specifically geared to the ongoing task of “taking responsibility for their own learning.” The portfolio might contain their updated academic plan,  “shadow evaluations”, some kind of cover sheet with specific advising prompts (e.g. about culminating projects, internships, prerequisites, endorsements, as well as sequential academic skill building in different fields, and some “depth” and “breadth” markers).

4) Collect ideas about how transcripts serve the needs of different campuses and programs, and of different kinds of students.

In our discussions we have learned that needs and practices around transcripts vary among the different programs and campuses of Evergreen. In thinking about how to improve our transcripts we need to build in flexibility for accommodating these various needs and practices.

5) Inform ourselves about current policies, practices and initiatives elsewhere at the college regarding transcripts/evaluations.

We should review the report of the Narrative Evaluation DTF and learn from its recommendations and how it has been received and implemented (or not). We should meet with Andrea and/or Elaine from Registration to discuss current policies, practices and challenges with transcripts.

Some questions to address:

  • When and how can components of the transcript currently be changed?
  • How many of our graduates actually end up requesting transcripts?
  • What impact have the summative eval. classes and policy had?
  • Can students get “review copies” of their transcripts for advising purposes w/o paying a fee?
  • Will any of our suggestions cause problems for Registration?
  • What is the policy about self-evals (for transcripts vs. in-house)?

6) Decide whether to recommend making specific transcript features mandatory (e.g. summative self-eval.)

With each of these ideas there’s the challenge of getting buy-in. To what extent can these become part of the culture because people see their benefits, and to what extent do they need some “teeth” to get rolling?

One more task came up in the ensuing discussion—to explore alternate models of transcripts by “translating” an existing transcript into several other formats and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses. Some other questions that emerged: what are the factors discouraging students submitting self-evaluation and how can these be addressed?

The group had an extensive, fruitful discussion with Andrea Coker-Anderson in the afternoon. They shared many details about the policies and practices related to transcripts that helped them assess the practicality of their ideas. A few highlights. Faculty often give poor advice to students about transcripts because they don’t know the current policies and practices—we need to improve the education of faculty on this score. The registrar’s office is often placed in the position of assessing summative self-evaluations to determine whether they are actually summative. And…in response to a question about how evaluations have changed in the wake of the Narrative Evaluation DTF five years ago…Andrea reported that evaluations have gotten shorter but program descriptions have not (even though the DTF recommended that both elements get shorter).

Ulrike reported for the ADVISING group. After much discussion, we decided that being prescriptive in terms of advising was not going to work well at Evergreen. Instead, we thought that giving students, faculty, and staff various ways of meeting expectations would be best. An example of what this might look like can be seen below:

Problems/ opportunities solutions implementation
Transcript readability educating faculty on the curriculum Critical junctures
Communication Peer educators Funded internships
Meaningful student


Designated faculty advisors in Pus (maybe the PUCs?)
Dissemination of information Integrate into curriculum/ winter academic planning
Required summative evaluation
Academic plan(ning)

The different opportunities open to students might include:


1. Taking a program that includes advising (explicitly stated in its program description)

2. Meet with advising staff

3. Non-program faculty sign-off

4. Peer advisor sign-off

5. 2-credit advising course

Kevin shared the key concerns discussed in CURRICULUM group.

1)   Breadth. How do we ensure that students get adequate breadth and integration of knowledge? And how do we want to define breadth in a way that satisfies our own pedagogical values and external parties (e.g. accreditors)? We were surprised by some of Laura Caughlin’s numbers about the low number of interdivisional programs based on the end-of-program reviews. (We plan to have a longer discussion with her about the numbers.)

2)   Individual Contracts. Too many poorly conceived contracts seem to happen as the result of poor planning and communication—e.g. student come with the impression that they can study and receive credit for anything, managerial problems result in too few seats in existing programs, etc.

3)   How do we make sure that our claims for what we accomplish with our curriculum and pedagogy resemble what we actually accomplish? Julie Suchanek raised this concern in the context of explaining Evergreen and lobbying for Evergreen in the legislature.

We met with the curriculum deans to hear about their concerns and to share our current thinking. We decided to focus on the following questions: How well does our curriculum work to help students meet the six expectations? (esp quantitative, qualitative, creative) Where does it work well? Where does it fall short? What are the ways that we can improve—in terms of (1) curricular design and planning (2) graduation requirements or required documentation of expectations. We also identified some key texts to improve our understanding of previous work at Evergreen on general education, curricular visions, and institutional history. We decided we want to…think seriously about graduation requirements; think seriously about systemic curricular planning (with or without requirements); and look at transcripts of students that we think meet the six expectations, and see whether there are patterns about the kind of courses/curriculum that they took to accomplish them.

At the end of the day, Elizabeth proposed that the “connective tissue” between the three focal points might be found in what we are calling “critical junctures”: i.e., designated points in each student’s academic career where some responsibility is taken by the student for their career. All related to the First Expectation: assuming responsibility for their work.

I’ll only add a few clarifying details to Elizabeth’s excellent summary of Friday’s work.

The key task we accomplished, of course, was the formation of three working groups: Advising, Curriculum, and Transcripts. That structural division was framed to reflect many of the ideas and perspectives we had been seeing together earlier in the week:
-The Six Expectations will be a touchstone for the work of all three groups.
-Each group will do original and focused thinking about its particular topic, but will keep an eye out for how its proposals might impact on the work of the other two groups (and communicate those to the other groups).
-We decided that several topics that had been proposed for separate working groups (History/context, Community, Culture/policy, Action now, Academic Calendar) actually cut across all three of our working groups, providing a kind of analytical toolbox that should be used by all three groups.

When we meet for week two, this structure will shape a significant part of our agenda, helping us to strike a balance between focused, detailed development of proposals and a broader viewing of how all the pieces might fit together.

It’s very interesting to see how our conversations about fragmentation and unification in the curriculum also apply to some of the internal dynamics of this institute. It is clearly true that, in these five days, we have cycled between clarity and confusion, between feelings of getting it all together and of things falling apart. The reading of transcripts provided a vivid sense of shared experience, a vocabulary of examples, concerns, and opportunities, and a common sense of urgency and mission. But when we started looking for ways to carry out that mission, our diverse histories and priorities made themselves known, and easy consensus on concrete steps seemed further away. This back-and-forth process, though frustrating in the moment, is, I think, a healthy aspect of our process.

Elizabeth was right in the way she characterize my personal desire to hold on to the complexity of our situation (while still making progress with our mission) by making space of each of us (and various small groups of us) to say “Hmmmm, I’ve been thinking about what we said before and it doesn’t seem quite right anymore.” Lara’s “non-manifesto” is a nice example of that.  Another similar moment on Friday was when Jay reminded us of the vital importance of student voices and involvement in this work.  Taking that seriously adds a new wrinkle to almost all parts of our work. There are also a number of key concepts (e.g. autonomy/responsibility, both of students and faculty; breadth vs. depth; advanced vs. gen.ed. work; what unification/fragmentation of knowledge looks like, and whether we should care about it; etc.) that seem to mean different things to different people. We should not—can not—wait until we have finished those conversations about such concepts before we move forward with new initiatives, for the simple reason that those conversations just won’t end. Yet they are really important conversations to continue, and our current work provides a perfect context for them.

One piece of work from the Transcript Working Group that I would like to recommend to all of you: The Narrative Evaluation DTF Report/Guide from 2004. Nancy M. attached it to an email earlier in the week.  It’s a beautiful document which answers many of the questions we raised after our transcript reading, and it prompts a crucial new one: Five years later, why has so little changed in the way transcripts actually look?

See you all on Mon.  —  Joe

We began the Friday session with a report from Nancy Murray on her adventures with downed trees and power outages — clearly the gods are telling Nancy to stop taking work home with her.

Citing some members’ concerns about the amount of processing that took place during days 1-4, Nancy  reassured us that we would soon be creating concrete plans to put before the faculty.

This naturally prompted a discussion about process.

Among the most notable topics discussed was the TESC budget. Jules Unsel reminded us that however brilliant our initiatives, they are emerging in a climate of severe scarcity. Julie Suchanek added some disturbing details to this reminder–though she did concede, when prompted by Laura Coghlan, that the new mechanisms for tracking institutional performance (someone might add a footnote on what these are; I’m a little fuzzy) might be a place where we could insert requests for funding new initiatives. Maybe.

Sarah Williams lifted the mood by sharing with us excerpts from 3 feet under, the award-winning geoduck documentary, along with Al Wiedemann’s graduation remarks on the mythos of said bivalve. The key moment here, for me, was Sarah’s “unpacking” of the geoduck as a visual signifier. Though its physique is ostensibly phallic, its more feminine attributes can be revealed by changing the frame with which we view it. I think there was an underlying message here about rethinking problems that appear intractable — and perhaps a warning against our tendency to view everything that has come before us as suspect and potentially regressive. Sarah also suggested that we can use the clam’s remarkable filtration abilities as a metaphor for the unification of knowledge.

Heartened, we returned to the question of how we would proceed with implementation. We decided on three overlapping categories: curriculum, transcripts, and advising. All are shorthand for issues that have come up repeatedly throughout the institute. Despite Jeanne Hahn’s urging, we scrapped the question of calendrical reform, in part because Jules reminded us that it would require an enormous initial financial outlay (and, as I later learned, a massive headache for student support staff). We thought that perhaps  our discussions of curriculum, transcripts, and advising might lead us to the conclusion that we would support a move to semesters, but I’m not quite sure how we as a College would make that move, especially now. We also vowed to take into consideration during our small group discussions the issues of student responsibility, the history of TESC policies and policy debates, the nature of interdisciplinary learning at other institutions, the need for a greater sense of community, and the six expectations–we also agreed to articulate both short and long term goals surrounding each of our three topics.

There was a brief, friendly mutiny from Rita Pougiales’s side of the room. She suggested that we may not be ready to talk about implementation, given that we’ve really only taken a glancing look at some of our assumptions about issues such as “student responsibility”. It was informally decided that we could continue those values-oriented discussions in the small groups. Joe Tougas also put in a plug for holding on to the complexity of what we’re doing, in part by allowing our discussions to be informed by our own disciplinary methodologies. I’m probably misrepresenting him again, but he’s supposed to blog about this session, too, so hopefully he’ll correct me.

Krishna Chowdary provided us with a manifesto of sorts, suggesting that the goal which would be driving his work in the weeks to come was to help students achieve success at TESC by giving them more opportunities to unify knowledge, using the six expectations as a guideline. This is a significant bastardization of Krishna’s original wording, which made Kathleen Eamon weep (a little).

I am intrigued, personally, by this question of what it means to “unify knowledge” — it seems to be one of the most important additions to the conversation begun at the transcript review.

I also want to express my gratitude to Krishna and to Lara Evans (see her “manifesto”) for making strong, highly personal statements that have helped to clarify the stakes of our discussions. In addition to collective problem solving, I think one of the best ways for us to move forward is to articulate what we, as individuals, are willing to stand up and commit to–as well as what is in danger of getting lost in the group decision making process.

After lunch, we broken into small groups, and returned only to state that we as group are quite fond of our current process and will continue with it on Monday the 24th.

In solidarity,


Well, it’s not really a manifesto- just a forceful statement of observation. I may retract this whole evaluation later. You never know. I didn’t really get to state these opinions in our meetings today- I was figuring it out all day and finally managed to put it together in the car on the ride home. It is not polished, but I was afraid if I didn’t get it out there in some form, I would never manage to share it>

Manifesto of the Breadth/Depth/Curriculum Problem:

The two areas identified as the source of the gen.ed. breadth problem (from the accreditation report) are two disciplines that require specialized workshop sessions for our students: labs for sciences, and studio sessions for the arts. In both cases, the space/equipment for these activities are limited and cannot accommodate the 50 students required for the FTE of two faculty in a program. When the disciplines of the two faculty are “far apart” from one another, that means that only one faculty can supervise and teach the lab/studio sessions. Splitting classes into two sections and sending one group to a workshop while the other group is being taught by the other faculty is one way of dealing with the problem. It results in a less interdisciplinary approach to the program and does not allow faculty to model co-learner behavior. This is a serious drawback. It also doubles the faculty’s time spent with students, but the individual student does not actually receive more faculty interaction. Instead of a 3 hour lab session, the student experience a 1.5 hour lab session.  This method effectively halves the depth of students’ experience. It is impossible to maintain depth, breadth, and truly interdisciplinary methodology under these circumstances. Something has to be sacrificed. In designing our programs, some of us sacrifice interdisciplinary methodology, some of us sacrifice depth, and of us sacrifice breadth.  These sacrifices are caused by two institutional circumstances that we, as faculty, are powerless to change: our facilities are designed for numbers of students that are too small in comparison to our FTE. Either we need facilities that accommodate 50 students in the labs (and staff to supervise safety in such large groups) and 50 students in the drawing studio/ceramics/wood/metal/sculpture, etc., or we need a significantly smaller FTE (or some way of mitigating the 25 FTE requirement that does not overburden faculty in this situation).

The problem with the curriculum is ultimately NOT the result of faculty abdication of responsibility or failure to value the six expectations, but is instead a symptom of a conflict between FTE and facilities design. It is NOT a problem with the curriculum at all! WOW. That hurt.

mr pickles 1

Mr. Pickles?!

The mystery of the image, the story, the punch line: a student did not receive academic credit simply for coming to class. When she complained that she deserved credit simply because she attended each day, she was told that showing up isn’t enough. To emphasize the point, the faculty told her that Mr. Pickles, a small dog brought to class each day by fellow student, was not getting credit either! The name of the dog and the sandwich shop is Mr. Pickles.  It’s a quandary not unlike this institute and its name?  “Refounding Evergreen” has morphed to “Nancy’s Institute” to “NI” to “An Eye to the Future.”

Nancy’s introduction began with “Mr. Pickles” and this invitation:

“I’m asking us to consider our work at Evergreen from a values perspective.”

A discussion followed, beginning with a reframing: “We’re being asked to consider what we’re aiming toward. We’re to consider our practices in relation to our values. What’s working and what’s not?”

“But, to what end?”

“What’s the motivation?”

“It’s been a year of budget cuts, where’s the money for this coming from and why?”

“Are our curricular structures serving how we want to teach?”

“I thought this was about math, about students not learning it.”

“This is about a promise I heard the provost made as a result of being on the FAP: How are we going to function given budget cuts?”

“I’m thinking of an IBM commercial: We’re ideating.”

“We need to consider accreditation issues. How well are we doing what we say we’re doing?”

“What are our institutional values?”

“As a result of our accreditation report and transcript institute, we need to consider where we’re falling short.”

“Experience tells me we as a faculty don’t respond well to being told what to do. How could we improve our chances of accomplishing anything given that we’re a select, “by invitation” group of faculty meeting during the summer in an institute that wasn’t on the list distributed to all faculty?”

“But, we are a representative group—just consider the range in the room in relation to planning units, years of service at the college, gender balance, Tacoma, and all the “no’s.” Lots of people were asked but couldn’t make a commitment to the full two weeks.”

“This tension, precisely this tension of representation, is central to our problem at Evergreen. Who’s invited? Who needs to be to do the work effectively?”

(A foundational myth at Evergreen: We’re a “participatory democracy.”  NOT.  See afternoon reading, M & M #1.)

“We’ve got time at the September Symposium to present our work.”

“Let’s put it on a blog now. Announce this work publicly, and invite participation.”

Lara diagram1

Lara diagram2

Our first day of meeting began with discussion of procedure and the creation of the blog. We then read two documents, the M&M II Manifesto and Youtz’s piece. We reconvened and discussed the documents in small groups.

I found it interesting that some issues identified as problems in these early documents are still problems. A few problems have been resolved too, though, which is good to see. During our small group discussion, we talked about curricular issues related to sequences of classes, such as might be found in the sciences or perhaps art classes. Problem-based or Inquiry-based approaches are an alternative to linear approaches. I drew the two diagrams above (in chalk on a table – very messy) while thinking about how I have found I need to teach art history in an interdisciplinary program. The only time I teach sequentially is when I’m teaching summer school and art history is my primary subject. In regular full-time programs, I’m usually engaged in the first model. I don’t have any answers for the curriculum as a whole… I only got so far as to make the diagrams above to help me think about the issues visually. Ultimately, this may not be important- but it’s one of the products of our interaction and discussion today.

When all the groups came back together, we spoke of a variety of topics inspired by the readings. Some of the ones that still sit in the forefront of my mind are the possibilities of having some very basic and simple requirements for students to graduate, such as 1 year in a full-time interdisciplinary program. A few students manage to get their degree only through 4 credit classes (even though they are full-time students, not EWS) or Independent Contracts.

Governance and governance structures were also a topic of discussion, as was the way we identify ourselves as a series of “no.” No grades, no requirements, etc. Several participants reported that the Viewbook misrepresents what Evergreen is about and that faculty need to re-engage with how the college is marketed in order to improve some of the difficulties we are encountering.

I’m looking forward to reading transcripts on Tuesday… that’s our next research phase.
-Lara Evans

This is what I noticed about day two:

On day two of the institute, we started with a review of the findings by the transcript-reading institute conducted earlier this summer. That institute used the Six Expectations of an Evergreen Graduate as the foundation to develop a coding rubric for the assessment of transcripts from the class of 2008 for evidence of over all pedagogical success. That institute used the Six Expectations as a foundation to ensure a faculty-centric research grounding for analysis and assessment.

After the review, we broke into small groups and read a couple of sample transcripts. This exercise served as a spring board to larger discussions of pedagogical methods, and inevitably, teaching philosophies as well.

Some of the questions that came up in discussion of the assessment tool and findings:

Where do advanced studies appear in the curriculum? Does advanced work always mean tightly disciplined work? Does it ever mean that?

The sciences have pre-ordained tracks for progressive learning, leading to advanced work. How is advanced work in the humanities structured in the curriculum? Is advanced work in the humanities properly supported by the deans?

If there is a poverty of structured advanced work in the humanities, have humanities programs slipped into a role of providing “gen ed” opportunities in complement to the more structured tracks and repeating programs in the curriculum?

Other conversations centered around questions of how students could become better informed and more mindful of the Six Expectations and Five Foci throughout their career track and learning choices at the college.

Some specific suggestions about this:

Faculty might introduce and discuss these with students in Week One each year.

Students could get more and better advising from faculty members and from Advising.

Seniors could be encouraged and helped to write summative evaluations.

Juniors and seniors could be encouraged to design and complete “capstone” projects.

Day 3 started with a continuation of report back from groups synthesizing what we found important and what we thought needed changes (structural or otherwise) or enhancements of old practices and fairly new practices.

Ideas, questions and discussion topics include:
Need to  allocate time for faculty advising students; importance of students focus and development of capstone projects; development of concrete  ways to integrate the 6 expectations of TESC  in our teaching and learning (remembering that not all programs have to address all expectations);  importance of  student completing summative self evaluations for their transcript; possibility of either or both a portfolio or eportfoliio (reservation based program eportfolio model was discussed); attention to faculty overload in whatever changes are suggested; importance of developing processes where faculty wide agreement to changes or discussions can happen;  importance of negotiating through possible tension that oftentimes comes from change;  discussion on how to enhance faculty evaluations with honest constructive feedback.

Concerns: Be careful that we do not create practices that are too rigid or mechanical.  Look at transcripts that we see have problems and develop methods on how to make them public to popularize lessons to learn not to expose or embarrass.  Also the importance of developing mechanisms on how and who we want to hear from about these problems: faculty, peers, deans, students?  Importance of communication and coherency in writing evaluations as examples of synthetic teaching; (some are 7 pages long).  Language in course equivalencies also needs to be examined.  What does “advanced” studies in blah blah blah really mean?  Should we emphasize that all students take at least one year of CSP?  Develop mechanisms to have quantitative reasoning and art across the curriculum grant possibilities to help in this effort.  How do we or should we have transcripts available for a variety of styles etc. so that the students and faculty will have examples etc. Concern for the possibility of faculty individualism and collaboration as rhetoric

Questions:  How is Evergreen innovative and what is our identity? Do we need a course/workshop on writing evaluations? What are our values? How and where does the college stand in relation to student and world?  What about processes that are innovative eg. Is seminar innovative?  What are our innovations and what maintains this characteristic? If we are innovative then do we need to constantly respond to the world.   What is a Liberal Arts education?

After lunch discussion on:
What do we value as an institution?  What is best for students? Reading for this session “Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities”



At nearly the end of the first week, it seemed appropriate to revisit why we are here. If you look back at the first day, we came here with a variety of ideas as to what we were going to do (to say the least!). The first week we hope that bubbling up to the surface is identifying what we are doing well at Evergreen, and that having done this, we might be able to translate this into an agreement on values. Perhaps the end of the second week would result in a charge for a DTF to further study and make recommendations to the faculty. Alternatively, rather than re-hash the same conversation and debates, perhaps our group (about 25 faculty) could make specific recommendations that they would carry out themselves in their programs this year, specifically around a.) advising (although we called it different things – mentoring?guiding?), b.) autonomy, and c.) breadth.

This framed our morning reading of part of the 2002 report, “General Education at Evergreen,” specifically the historical narrative of the gen ed discussion at Evergreen and how the six expectations came into being. We were sobered by the level of acrimony around the issue, and it seemed to frame our brief discussion in the morning.

In the afternoon we broke up into smaller groups to try and identify the main themes that have emerged so far and then prioritize them. In larger group discussion, it was evident that the groups also came up with a number of concrete ideas that could be implemented by individual faculty right away, as well as some that would require both broad-based faculty and institutional support. Many ideas required substantive change but some involved a reframing of what many faculty already so.

A few things stuck out for me in the day:
• I’m still struck by reading through Evergreen student transcripts on Day 2 – I’ve been here nearly 9 years and have looked at probably only a handful of student transcripts. It’s clear that we need to address clarity and the importance of student voice in them, but it is also apparent that outsiders have latched onto the credit equivalencies as a way of measuring breadth of education. Laura Coughlin’s work is incredibly important in recognizing this problem and trying to address this. Having said that, student voice in the transcript still seems so important, and better substantive self-evaluations.

• This group has recognized a need for some change, which while seemingly initiated by external concerns, also reaffirmed some of the things we have all seen. Certainly, reading through some student transcripts brought a number of concerns about how well we were serving some students (while recognizing that we serve a large number very well, indeed).

• The importance of recognizing what Tacoma and Res-Based are doing – particularly around breadth of education. It seems to go without saying, yet too often no one says it in our daily work on the Olympia campus.

• We need to be thinking about how we assess how students have met the expectations that we already present to the outside world as what we expect of an Evergreen graduate.

• My small group was brimming with ideas on how to make change happen. We had a discussion on how we can re-frame math and art and whether we value this in our own teaching. MIT program used “Math as Social Justice” – similarly we felt strongly that we don‚t think of art as just decoration or math as pure theory, but we use this in our programs – we need to recognize and redefine the ways math and art have been used to disadvantage people in society and how it can be used instead. Instead of advising, think instead of Educare “to lead out” and not proscribe solutions for ourselves and our students.