YCCD Math Dept Meeting
Date: Wednesday, Dec 21, 2011
Time: 10:00 a.m.--3:00 p.m.
Venue: CCOF Room 3
Attendance [taken from Flex sign-in sheet]:
Mike Papin, Talwinder Chetra, Matt Clark, John Steverson, Karsten Stemmann, Roger Davidson, Sarah Kovacs, Kirk Wardlaw, Hanan Andrianarivo (and Joseph), Lauren Syda, John Thoo
Agenda/minutes
--------------
X) Additions to the agenda or rearrange the topics below?
X1) Campus updates
1) YC/CLC
a) Karsten has cleared his final tenure review.
b) Karsten will continue as Flex coordinator in 2012--13 (20%).
c) John S will continue to be Academic Senate President until 2013 (60%).
d) Roger has been reassigned permanently 50% to lead the Engineering Department.
e) Roger will be CSC coordinator 2012--2015 (40%, likely all from math).
f) Cathy did retire at the end of 2010--11.
g) Lauren will effectively retire at the end of 2011--12.
h) Accutrack has been installed an operating in the HMCA (M-702); it may be installed in the HMC (M-700) next month.
i) Two more computers are slated to be installed in the HMCA any day now.
j) Math 51 finished with 15 students, 2/3 of which did not take the
course to meet the Math 16 prerequisite.
2) WCC/CCOF
a) Talwinder has cleared his final tenure review.
b) Talwinder's BSI initiative (a book purchase program for Math 50 and 52) was recognized by the state BSI people as one of the best practices.
c) Hanan will return to teach in spring 2012.
d) MESA and California Connects programs will commence in spring 2012.
e) Early Alert Program (funded through BSI; see 2/18/11 DMDM minutes item A.1.b) is working very well at promoting success among Math 110, 111, and 50 students.
f) Finished a second semester with an IA in the WAM (see 2/18/11 DMDM minutes item A.1.c).
g) SLO assessment is going full stride. A plan for what to do with the results is being put together.
X2) Old business from DMDM of 2/18/11
Item B.a) Matt and Lauren successfully coordinated the common final exam in fall 2011, so that it was on the same day at the same time at both WCC and YC
Item B.b) Matt notes that DE students need to make an appoint to take a test at the WCC Library, but they are still welcome to take tests together with a class.
Item B.c) WCC Library hours will be expanded in spring 2012 to include some hours on Fridays, so DE students may take tests there then.
Item D.d) JohnT has not yet contacted Erik Cooper to compare the success of math 52AB students vs. Math 52 students in their succeeding math class. He will ask Erik for a comparison of those students who successfully completed Math 52B (not considering 52A) vs. 52 before the next DMDM. WCC has not offer Math 52AB since its first time, so they will not seek a similar comparison for their students.
Item H) The decision to make Math 50 a repeatable course is rescinded.
X3) Announcements
a) 2012 SVCCM will be at Sierra College on Mar 10
b) 2012 CMC3 Tahoe conference will be the last weekend of Apr; Robert Mathews will be one of the keynote speakers.
A) Common final exams (Clark; 15 min)
Matt solicits feedback on the latest common final exams.
a) Math 111: Mike says his students faired a little better. Not much other feedback. Most seemed satisfied.
b) Math 50: Tal likes the final. Matt said he thinks students didn't seem stressed (staying until the very last). Kars agrees.
c) Math 52: Lauren thinks that it was pretty good overall; however, some questions repeated concepts such as the handling of negative signs properly. JohnS voices that he likes a little repetition of this type.
d) Matt notes it is good to comment on the common final exams soon after they are given, while it is still fresh in our minds.
Everyone agrees, so we should do so again next time.
e) The same persons will again write the common final exams in spring 2012:
Sarah 111; Kars 50; Matt 52.
f) With the transition to a new textbook in fall 2012, new persons will write the common final exams for the next three years:
Hanan 111; Tal 50; Rog 52.
g) Matt says it is good to ask ourselves every now and then if we want to continue with having district common final exams.
Everyone agrees that we will continue with common final exams at this time.
B) Homework plagiarism in Math 1A and other courses (Kovacs; 10 min)
a) Sarah brings up that there must be a (instructor) solution manual online because about 15 of her Math 1A students turned in worked that must have been copied from it. She weights homework 20%, so this is a significant problem. She eventually reported 4 the students who continued to copy solutions to the VPASS and they were put on academic probation. Apparently, this does nothing much to the students the first time; however, a repeated offense would result in a notation of "academic dishonesty" in their transcripts.
b) Tal reports (from Lauren) that there is a website where one can get solutions to odd-numbered problems free of charge and may pay a nominal fee for solutions to even-numbered problems.
[[What is the website?]]
c) Kirk and JohnS say perhaps the classes need to be structured differently. JohnS voices that he actually does not mind students copying because it can be a learning tool, especially if they first struggle with the problems before copying. For this reason he is reluctant to crack down on homework copying. JohnS weights homework about 15%. He gives weekly quizzes that contain problems from the homework.
d) JohnS suggests assigning graded homework chosen from a different textbook, but Tal says that at that website he mentioned as student needs only type in the problem without having to know from which textbook it comes to obtain a solution.
e) On the other hand, Lauren wants her students to work out "5 page problems" entirely on their own because she cannot test such long problems in class.
f) Kirk says that he does not have these problems at all. He weights homework about 8% and gives frequent tests, about every 3 weeks. He does not really care whether students copy their homework from a solutions manual or from each other.
g) Rog asks if the VPs at the two colleges share their lists of offenders. Apparently they do not. Rog suggests that the two academic senates take this up.
Matt and JohnS nod.
C) Algebra textbook search (Chetra; 5 min)
- Update
- WebAssign vs. MML
- Who wants to review?
a) Tal reports he visited publishers at the recent CMC3 conference in Monterey and requested review copies of several algebra textbooks with late copyrights. (Tal and Rog also attended the WebAssign workshop there.) He asks if it is necessary that we adopt a district common textbook because i) no one at WCC uses MyMathLab (MML; Julie Brown uses MathXL); ii) he is considering a textbook from xyztextbooks (a company backed by the well-known author McKeague and is run by his son) that may cost as little as $50, but is not integrated with either MML or WebAssign (WA).
b) Rog says he wants a textbook that is integrated with either MML or WA. Rog says that MML and WA each can do some things the other cannot, but that WA has many cool features, for example, being able to set a problem to give 100% if it is answered correctly the first attempt, 90% if it is answered correctly the second attempt, and so on.
c) Sarah says that her experience with using the software that supports the Hawkes prealgebra textbook has been very bad, and she recommends that we not use that. Her complaint does not extend to the textbook itself. We use a Hawkes textbook in Math 110 and 111, and Kirk has used it for Math 7. Kirk says that he found the Hawkes textbooks to be OK.
d) JohnS's online course currently is run entirely through MML, but he is willing to explore something different, such as WA. He notes that he was not impacted by the major Blackboard snafu last year because he had his course running entirely through MML.
e) Tal and Matt say that there is a requirement (Matt says in Title V) that prohibits our making students purchase something that they cannot take away with them, for example, an access code for MML. A long discussion ensued about what it may mean to have something that is "taken away" and whether MML falls under that. There was confusion over for how long an MML access code is valid. Sarah thinks it is for one year, but JohnS, Rog, and others say that they have had students use the same code for more than one year. Apparently the publisher is vague on this.
f) Sarah voices concerns about using different textbooks because of the DE classes. JohnS says that using different textbooks would make good communications with everyone, including the students, even more imperative.
g) Sarah says that instructors who do not incorporate the use of MML still may make the ebook version of Martin-Gay available to their students, and that the ebook version is much cheaper. (JohnS says about $80 vs. $180.) Rog notes that if the use of MML is not incorporated, then setting up the class only to make the ebook version available would take only 5 minutes.
h) Tal remarks that there are not many open computers on WCC and that many of their students do not have easy access to computers to use an ebook. Several people respond that the ebooks can be read on smart cellular phones. Matt wonders whether ebooks would be in compliance with the Title V requirement mentioned in (d) above.
i) Matt suggests that we roll over to the new 5th edition of Martin-Gay for now, and that instructors who rely on MML to use the next two years to explore and evaluate different software solutions. Sarah voices her willingness to lead the exploration and evaluation, so she is it.
We all agree to roll over to the new 5th edition of Martin-Gay for Math 50 and 52.
D) Textbooks for different courses such as Math 21 and 1A (Chetra; 15 min)
a) Tal wants to search for a different textbook for Math 21. Everyone agrees.
Tal will coordinate the search. Anyone who is interested in helping should contact Tal to let him know.
b) A discussion of the Math 1A textbook is postponed until item F below.
E) Update on course outline updating (Wardlaw; 10 min)
a) Kirk has updated course outlines for the following courses.
Math 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, 7, 10, 21, 25, 50, 51, 52, 58, 110, 111
Fourteen courses in total. Everyone thanks Kirk for his work.
b) Matt asks about the Math 9 and Stat 1 outlines, which were not updated. Kirk says that, as far as he knows, they are not yet due to be updated.
F) Course Identification Numbering System (C-ID) (Chetra; 20 min)
There are final descriptors for eight math courses at
a) It is agreed that the course outlines for Math 1A, 1B, and 2A will be revised to align with the C-ID descriptors. New outlines should be submitted in fall 2012 to be effective fall 2013.
JohnT will coordinate the revision. Anyone who is interested in helping should contact JohnT to let him know.
b) It is further agreed that Math 2A will be renumbered Math 1C; and Math 2B will be renumbered Math 2 (which would be only a technical revision).
c) After Math 1A, 1B, and 1C are approved by the state chancellor's office, we will decide when to update or revise other courses to align them with the C-ID descriptors.
G) College algebra and Math 7 (Clark; 15 min)
Draft C-ID descriptors for
- College Algebra for Liberal Arts (Math 150)
- College Algebra for STEM (Math 151)
- Precalculus (Math 155)
are at
a) If we align Math 1A with the C-ID descriptor, then the prerequisite will be successful completion of either i) trigonometry and college algebra or ii) precalculus. Kirk continues to voce his concern that we have no way now for a student to test out of college algebra alone. JohnT asks if the CCCAssess Project will be able to address this. No one knows.
It is agreed that we need to figure this out by 2013 because it was agreed in F.a above that Math 1A will aligned with the C-ID descriptor effective fall 2013.
Kirk will continue to explore this.
b) JohnT related how he has heard that at one CCC, he believes it is Cabrillo college, the local high schools have some courses articulated with the math department, so that if a student successfully completes those h.s. courses and scores past intermediate algebra on the college placement test, then the student may enroll in a transferable math course. This would require working with the local high schools. No one suggests that we do this.
c) JohnT asks if we want to make both trig plus college algebra and precalculus prerequisite options for Math 1A, or only trig plus college algebra, or only precalculus. It is agreed that we want all options. This means that we need to i) create a college algebra course that is aligned with the (draft) C-ID descriptor for STEM majors and ii) update or revise the Math 7 outline, so that it is aligned with the (draft) C-ID descriptor.
Matt will coordinate the creation of a college algebra course. Anyone who is interested in helping should contact Matt to let him know.
Sarah will coordinate the updating or revising of the Math 7 outline. Anyone who is interested in helping should contact Sarah to let her know.
d) JohnT encourages everyone to comment on the draft C-ID descriptors online while comments are still being taken.
H) Discrete math (Thoo; 5 min)
a) Doug Joksch had approached the math department through JohnT to ask that a discrete math course be created, so that computer science students may transfer to CSU Chico or CSU Sac with all of their freshman and sophomore major requirements completed.
b) JohnT distributed a draft outline that Doug had written with JohnT's help.
c) Kirk notes immediately that the form is not correct.
d) JohnT asks everyone to review the outline and to send him any comments (from how the form is filled out incorrectly to the course content) by the first week of the spring semester.
e) JohnT says that after our comments are received and incorporated into the draft outline, he will seek comments from his counterparts at the local CSUs to make sure that the course will articulate with them. Following that, the outline would be submitted to the Curriculum Committee.
I) DE and math (Clark; 15 min)
a) Matt reports that there is a ongoing discussion regarding whether DE is a program or a modality.
b) Matt notes that it would be nice if we were to discuss what we offer via DE. JohnS notes that the YC offerings are generally pretty stable.
[Fall 2012: TV Math 21 (1 section), 50 (1); Online Math 50 (1); 52 (2). Spring 2013: TV Math 7 (1), Math 52 (1); Online Math 50 (1), 52 (3). In addition, one section of Math 50 is offered online from WCC in each fall and spring.]
c) Matt would like us to consider offering Math 3 or 2B via DE. WCC will offer Math 3 for the second consecutive time in spring 2013, but they currently have only two students enrolled in it. He suggests that we discuss this further electronically.
d) Tal asks that YC let WCC know whenever there is a change in the course or the number of sections we offer via DE.
J) AMATYC report (Davidson; 30 min)
[The discussion of this item and of item K below were combined.]
a) Rog reminds us that he had emailed to all of us a synopsis of what he learnt about redesigned developmental-remedial-first transfer sequence of couress at the AMATYC conference he attended last November.
[Rog had emailed his report to Matt and JohnT, who subsequently forwarded it to everyone in the department. A copy is appended at the bottom of the minutes.]
b) Rog does not think there will be one singular solution or model that that can be adopted universally to promote student success in the sequece. Moreover, among the colleges that have some program in place, some are for what is equivalent to our Math 50 to a first transfer course, and others are for Math 111 to a transfer course; none is noted to begin with what is equivalent to our Math 110.
c) In summary, some of the models being used are i) emporium, ii) online, iii) self paced, iv) a very intensive semester of only math courses plus tutoring (a student would not enroll in any other courses), v) Statway, vi) Quantway.
d) Rog notes that both Statway and Quantway are for non-STEM majors. For us, Statway would take students through Math 50 to Stat 1 in one year.
Rog notes that some CCCs are already using Statway. He believes that all the CSUs and UCs now accept Statway for transfer students. Tal and JohnT remark that they have heard otherwise.
[An enquiry regarding whether all the CSUs and UCs now accept Statway for transfer students was sent to Bruce Yoshiwara after the meeting. Bruce is the current AMATYC West Vice-President. His answer in short is no. A copy of his full reply is appended at the bottom of the minutes.]
Quantway is still being piloted and we may expect results to be announced next year. Rog notes that a hallmark of Statway and Quantway is the notion of "persistent struggle" by students.
e) Rog's big takeaway from his AMATYC experience is that we do not have the resources to undertake a major redesign of our courses, and that we should look at what other colleges are doing successfully and adopt what they do.
f) Statway or Quantway, if we were to adopt either, would be options to the regular offerings; perhaps half of what we offer would be converted to Statway or Quantway. The courses by necessity and design would be accelerated, meaning that some traditional topics would be left out.
g) JohnS states that he does not believe in accelerated math courses. Moreover, JohnS questions if we have enough students or sections to do that really. He compares to Chabot College, which has adopted Statway, that has about 150 intermediate algebra sections and about 75 statistics sections; for them, it was practical for them to convert some of those sections to Statway. At YC, for example, we have many fewer sections in total, so converting any to Statway (or some other pathway) would not be practical.
h) Tal describes what De Anza is doing: They offer what is equivalent to our Math 50, 52, and Stat 1 plus counseling classes in two semester plus one summer. Students meet for 10 hours a week.
i) Matt suggests that we should offer, not accelerated, but condensed (faster paced, but nothing left out) courses, and have students take the sequence as cohorts.
K) Reorganizing Math 110 to 52 (Clark; 45 min)
[This is a continuation of the discussion of item J above.]
a) Matt reports that he and JohnT discussed last summer the possibility of reworking Math 110, 111, 50, and 52 (15 units over four semesters) into a 3-semester sequence. The material in each course would be roughly Math 110+111 (4 units), Math 111+50 (5 units), and Math 50+52 (5 units), totaling 14 units over three semesters.
b) Kirk suggests that we adopt a combined textbook for Math 111, 50, and 52. Sarah says that she will look into such a book.
c) Tal brings up iLearn that he and Mike saw at the CMC3 conference in Monterey earlier this month. It is an online self-paced course that is taken in a room with an instructor present. Students need to complete only those modules needed to remediate.
d) Matt says that we will probably be told not to offer Math 110 sometime, so we can either plan now or wait to react to the edict.
e) At the very least, Matt notes that we need to renumber Math 50 to be something above Math 100 to place it appropriately as a BSI course.
f) Lauren cautions against having the algebras be 5 unit courses for practical reasons (classroom availability, scheduling, finding adjunct faculty, &c.).
g) Sarah suggests that instead of having Math 110, drop Math 110 altogether, but offer in addition to Math 111 split Math 111A and 111B (much like the split 50AB and 52AB).
h) Much discussion ensued about whether students who lack arithmetic skills would be successful in Math 111 as a first course, even if it is split into Math 111AB.
i) JohnS notes that the official definition of success (completion of a certificate or degree or transfer) is far too narrow. He notes that there are many students who take Math 110 for the arithmetic skills they may need in their jobs and that this should be counted as success, but it is not.
j) No concrete decision regarding the redesigning of Math 110, 111, 50, and 52 is made.
L) Math 110A, B, and C: take off the books? (Thoo; 5 min)
JohnT asks if we may drop (deactivate) Math 110A, 110B, and 110C from the catalog. Everyone agrees that we may.
JohnT will proceed to do this.
M) SLO
- Extra credit or not? (Steverson; 20 min)
After a little discussion, it is agreed that SLO assessment questions on the common final exam will not be extra credit, but that assessment questions for other courses may be extra credit or not at the discretion of the instructor.
******************************************************
** At this point the meeting was adjourned, and the **
** remainder of the agenda was not discussed. **
******************************************************
- Inclusion in syllabus (Thoo; 10 min)
- Common in the district?
- Expand number?
- Make useful for high schools? (Steverson, Thoo; 2*pi min)
N) Early Assessment Program (EAP) (Thoo; 15 min)
Background:
- At the CSU where it began:
- At the CCC
- List of CCCs accepting results:
(WCC and YC have accepted?)
O) YC program review (Thoo; 10 min)
------------------------Rog's 2011 AMATYC reprot----------------------------
From: Roger Davidson
Date: November 11, 2011 4:32:03 PM PST
To: John Thoo , Matthew Clark
Subject: Preliminary feedback and information from AMATYC
John and Matt,
Please feel free to disseminate this note (or parts of it) to our other math faculty.
The conference in Austin has been literally back-to-back sessions on course redesign. It seems the push is on to find a magic bullet that will result in every student joyously passing our courses and being forever changed for the good of humankind. The push also seems to be coming from all sides: national government, state government, educational bodies at multiple levels, and non-profits. Some schools are making changes on their own, some states are mandating it, and some schools have said simply "Do this." The reason is obvious, we average a 50% pass rate in most of our courses, and this results in VERY few students who start in developmental math meeting their educational goals be it a degree, transfer or certificate. We all seem to agree that improvement must be made.
The consensus diverges quickly thereafter as to "How?" From what I've seen there are a few main themes:
1) More structure -- this is the cheapest option. It requires departments and institutions to do some things that we've already done at YCCD (such as common finals) but goes much further. How much further depends on the institution, the union status there, and other factors, but here is a list of the main items from the talks I've seen:
a) common grading of the final (based on a rubric for each question)
b) common course grading policy (e.g., 25% final, 50% exams, 10% hw, 10% quizzes/activities, 5% discretionary)
c) common course syllabus including schedule
d) common homework assignments
e) common midterm exams
f) and more, believe it or not.
2) Placement test changes -- this includes "boot camps" before placement, counseling sessions before placement (e.g., "Go home and study before you take this test that determines your college path."), and even changing the order of the placement exams. On that last note, there was a entry in the poster session today that showed a simple change in the order of the placement exams (from number sense (pass) --> algebra test, to algebra test (fail) --> number sense) resulted in greater overall success rates of 40% within the chain of courses.
3) Course acceleration/Math immersion -- algebra courses are combined into one larger-credit, single-semester, course. One college has it as 10 hours and then the students are asked to fill up the rest of their required # of units with a college success course (study habits, time management, test taking strategies, math anxiety management, etc.) so that the students do only math for that one semester to make them ready for transfer level courses. I think one school even smushed in college algebra by the end.
4) Emporium-model courses -- the algebra sequence is structured as a set of courses each containing parts of the Math50/52 curriculum. Students then take each course in order requiring proof of mastery before moving on. There is a lot of variation in this type of redesign, but one comes to mind. At one college, the sequence was deconstructed into 9 components. The various education goals (STEM, non-STEM transfer, AA, CTE, etc.) then determined which of the 9 were to be used as prerequisites for their programs. This then provided a menu of the 9 algebra courses that each particular student must take (the list of combinations took most of a slide). Then in their registration process, algebra is set up as a shell course for which each student pays for a given number of units (say 4, as an example), then the student works that semester to get through as many of the 9 modules as they need. A great student needing 6 modules might get through all 6 in a semester and be done. A less adept student might pay for 4, get through 2 (technically failing the 4 unit course), but when they went to retake the course the next semester, they would start in module 3 versus back at square one. There is a lot of room for innovation here, but the shortest time to implement that I saw was 3 years, and that was at a big school with LOTS of faculty, and if I recall, also had the force of a state (GA) mandate behind them. Articulation for emporium-based college algebra was also a challenge with some programs.
5) Finally, STATWAY & QUANTWAY, are the BMOC players here. Both represent changes in curriculum, modality and process based on theory in neuroscience and education. Both are 1 year pathways (2 academic semesters) that would replace 3 regular courses in our current system FOR non-STEM MAJORS. A study of the top 5 math/critical thinking countries (based on student test scores) was compared to the US to determine why the US is not in the top 5. Among the results: we are great on explaining the concept, but we move too quickly to computation and procedure before allowing the students to experience an uncomfortable state called "productive struggle" which teaches them both critical thinking and persistence in problem solving. I will bring a copy of an example module (both instructor and student versions) to the district math meeting. I confess that I loved that module -- it is a deep, rich module that is heart-breakingly beautiful in its completeness and relevance. To me, it really shows what can happen if you let enough really smart people collaborate and innovate. Of course, it's the only module I've seen so the rest could be doo doo. Also part of the program is a continuous feedback on course materials, innovations, collaboration across institutions, standardized assessments, instructor professional development, and on and on. STATWAY (for us consider it Math 50 thru Stats 1) is being taught at about 2 dozen colleges in 5 states for the first time this semester. The debut of QUANTWAY (Math 50 thru college-level quantitative reasoning) is next year. Good news: STATWAY is being used in CA so the articulation hurdles won't be so large for us. Bad news: YC must apply and be accepted before we would be allowed access to the program, and QUANTWAY is not being taught anywhere in our state so it will be years before the articulation of QUANTWAY would be addressed. Both have huge support from non-profits including the Carnegie Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and 3 others whose names I've forgotten. To apply, a college must send a letter of application that "evidences a culture of evidence" -- meaning we must show we are a data driven college. Hmmm... I'll put that in the bad news column for now. Two other good news bits tho: the curriculum for both will become open source eventually, and the collaborative process of formal lesson plan development is something we could try with any of our courses at any time. Also keep in mind that since both these paths are for non-STEM majors, we would still need a string of courses to support STEM fields.
More on the collaboration for formal lesson plans.... In the session today, we were asked to review a lesson plan and offer feedback. The process is:
1) Group of faculty meet to develop a lesson plan with associated objectives, background, examples and activities.
2) One faculty member teaches the lesson plan developed while ALL the others in the group observe and take notes on what worked, the level of student engagement, what questions were asked, etc.
3) Each faculty member reflects on their experience/observation, and together they modify the original lesson plan as a group.
4) A different faculty member from the previous one teaches the lesson plan while the others observe and take notes.
5) Go to step 3 and repeat until lesson plan is deemed "ready".
That is the process that STATWAY and QUANTWAY have been going thru for years. It's very intense and a bit intimidating at first glance (if you are like I was). But it was so COOL to see in action (they had video of one class working through an activity with mathematical modeling with exponential functions), and oh the results. It was also telling that in our group and the table next to us (12+ educators from many colleges) today, no one had ever been thru a process like this, and many remarked that they wish they had or could.
Sorry for the lengthy, typo-ridden report but I wanted to get this out while it was still somewhat fresh and more importantly before I get sidetracked into something else. I'm happy to have been able to represent our college and district at the conference.
Best regards,
--R
------------------Status on transferability of Statway---------------------
From: "Yoshiwara, Bruce W."
Date: December 22, 2011 9:11:19 AM PST
To: "John B. Thoo"
Subject: RE: Statway in California
Hi John,
The CSU Chancellor’s Office gave the exemption for Statway™ to apply to CSU GE Area B4 to the districts of the five community college involved with the pilot (i.e., the districts for American River College, Foothill CC, San Diego CC, Mt SAC, and the LACCD). So colleges from any of those districts that adopt the Statway™ (which would require permission from the Carnegie Foundation) courses would get the exemption for all of the CSU. I believe the exemption is valid for 3 years.
The UC has NOT agreed to accept Statway™.
CC’s that are not in a district involved in the pilot but interested in offering Statway™ or Quantway™ can check out the Pathways website (http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/) for more details and contact info.
Cheers.
Bruce Yoshiwara
Pierce College Mathematics Department Chair
yoshiwbw@piercecollege.edu
http://faculty.piercecollege.edu/yoshibw/
office 1409E (818)710-4160 fax (818) 710-3314"
Only the mediocre are always at their best.." Jean Giraudoux
-----Original Message-----
From: John B. Thoo [mailto:jthoo@yccd.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 8:59 PM
To: Yoshiwara, Bruce W.
Subject: Statway in California
Hello, Bruce.
How do you do?
A question about Statway in California came up in our department meeting today. The question is, Will Statway now articulate with _all_ the CSUs and UCs (and as what course) or will each CCC have to articulate with individual (local) CSUs and UCs?
Thanks.
Happy Christmas and happy New Year's to you and Kathy.
---John.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John B. Thoo Yuba College Mathematics
jthoo@yccd.edu jbthoo@me.com
ms.yccd.edu/~jb2 homepage.mac.com/jbthoo
Mathematics truths Exposing invisibles Getting at the heart