A couple of notes from yesterday's meeting:
 
1.  Next meeting:  Wednesday, April 23, 4pm, regular spot.
 
        Agenda:   a.  Final discussion of 3-8 and 8-14 recommendations
                        i.  EDT folks will present descriptions of methods
                                courses.
                        ii. Joe will draft a better description of MTH 116 and
                                MTH 218, particularly so we can see the
                                distinction between the two courses.
                        iii. Discuss using non-mean-based statistics in the new
                                stat course (STA xyz) and STA 368 (Hill and
                                Kansky)
 
                  b. Discussion of Rouse's concern that we make
recommendations                 for the Core requirements for eduction
majors.  (eg:  learning theory, etc.)
 
 
                  c. Finalization of MAT revisions memo.
 
 
 
Concern:  We had some discussion about what we, as a committee, should send
to the SEAP committee's to which we report our results.  Rouse is
requesting complete "official" university forms.  Stonewater is resisting.
Here's why:  First, the original charge to us was to develop a plan,
including rationale based in learned society recommendations, and including
course descriptions. The result of our discussions is the draft we used
yesterday.  This took me considerable time to develop and I think - after
we finish it at our next meeting - it is a good and complete description of
our thinking.  It is my opinion that the proposal better communicates the
complexities of our discussions than would the official forms.
Additionally, given that some negotiations will most likely occur between
the Math Ed committee and the SEAP commmittees, it does not appear to make
sense to me now to complete official forms and then redo and redo.  In
short, Bill, I think that we have attempted to do what we were originally
asked to do, given that the original assignment was rather vague.  To
change the expectations at this time, especially given the considerable
amount of time that we all have put into the drafts, seems somewhat
unreasonable.  Thus, I am strongly recommending that we send the final
draft of our memo, not the forms.  I understand why your are requesting
forms, Bill, but in the spirit of Mike Fuller, it is unlikely that I will
undertake yet another time consuming paper work task.  Are there other
volunteers to do so?