For several years the chemistry faculty in Maryland's public two-year and four-year institutions have recognized that a good articulation of courses and programs across institutions helps student transition. In the course of regular articulation meetings, the faculty became aware of the efforts to reform the curriculum occurring different departments. A growing desire to discuss these efforts and to learn from each other encouraged us to sponsor a statewide conference on reforming the first two years of the college chemistry curriculum. We made a special effort to reach private institutions that had not previously been part of the articulation conversations and to reach out to as many public institutions and high school teachers as possible.

This conference, Issues in Gateway Chemistry Courses, held on November 8, 1996, was designed to promote standards-based reform and support improvements in undergraduate chemistry education. It is an example of an effective model for creating connections between institutions and faculty to foster curriculum reform in the first two years of the college chemistry curriculum. In doing so, it addressed several of the recommendations from Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology, a report produced in October 1996 by the National Science Foundation (NSF):

• Expand partnerships with colleges and universities to advance institution-wide reform initiatives.
• Encourage formal and informal collaborations between institutions, especially between two-year and four-year colleges, including development of firm articulation agreements to make student transitions efficient and effective.
• Implement activities that will further engage private industry, business, and foundations in supporting improvement of undergraduate SME&T education.

The morning portion addressed the "national scene" through discussion of ACS and NSF initiatives and national standards and their impact on undergraduate education. Two NSF-supported chemistry systemic reform projects were presented by John W. Moore from the University of Wisconsin­Madison and David K. Gosser of the City College of CUNY. The Maryland Core Learning Goals for K­12 were presented by William Harwood. Morning break and lunch were used to view and discuss the nineteen poster papers presented by college and university faculty and high school teachers from Maryland. Four concurrent sessions were offered in the afternoon:

• Innovations in General Chemistry and
• Innovations in Organic Chemistry, the two "Innovations" sessions having ten presentations mainly focusing on discovery-based learning;
• Technology, an Integral Part of the Chemistry Curriculum, with six presentations on computer-based learning (CBL) and other computer-based resources;
• Chemical Industry in Maryland, with four presenters discussing industry's needs and expectations from students and chemical process employers.

All together there were 46 presenters, 39 from Maryland, attesting to the vitality and commitment to chemical education in the state. A 24-page book containing 45 presentation and poster abstracts provided participants with an excellent resource for the future. Participant costs were minimal owing to donations from ACS local sections, the chemical industry, and academic organizations.

While some of the topics discussed are familiar to attendees of chemical education conferences, the structure and environment were novel. Moreover, the local nature of the conference provided a collegial environment conducive to new ideas and interinstitutional collaboration.

All told, there were more than 140 participants at the conference from 61 institutions: 17 four-year public and private colleges and universities, 14 community colleges, and 30 high schools. The three groupshigh schools, community colleges, and senior institutionswere well-balanced with 51 (35%) high school teachers, 39 (27%) community college faculty, 47 (32%) senior institutions, and 8 (6%) industry and business representatives.

Participants and presenters were uniformly enthusiastic and positive about this event. Evaluations collected at the end of the meeting were positive and gave suggestions for alternative formats for future meetings. The conference clearly provided a strong foundation for the future and, based on the response and comments, we anticipate continuing to hold this conference on an annual basis. It was suggested that more opportunity for hands-on and interactive sessions should be available. Also, some felt that a model that created small working groups during the meeting to discuss a focus issue and report back to the conference as a whole would be very exciting and productive. In preparing for the next conference, we anticipate expanding the committee to include two high school teachers and an additional two-year faculty member. In this way, all constituencies will have equal representation and input in developing the format for our second, now annual, conference.