1. Goals of the March Meeting
   Information Exchange on existing programs and products 
   Contacts list update
   Informal Science Opportunities
   PPT evaluation
   Pilot Projects discussion
   Summer workshop plans
   Evaluation criteria

2. Informal Science Opportunities
   SDSupercomputer Center
   SIO Pier
   UCSD Library/Walking Tour
   Stephen Birch Aquarium
   LJ beach/children pool seals
   LJ Symphony/chorus @ Mandeville/UCSD(3pm)

3. Explore Commmon Vocabulary and develop common context
   educator
   LTER site-cross site research
   LTER education history and future
   Pearland science curriculum structure
     Texas science curriculum standards (tests?)
     hardware, software, network connections
   TEA
     constraints and structure
     realtime experience with PAL
     postfield experience translates to classroom
     postlab experience translates to classroom
     long term projects associated with TEA
     other long term projects
     other teachers reception to new materials 
     influence of TEA materials on Texas science curriculum
     assessment of how kids best learn science (personal and dept)
     how have you figured out what programs worked
     had scientist in classroom? if so how it work
       how like see this relationship initiated and developed
     value of web based ppt
       how effective vs setting up weather sation
       generate more web based material??

4. Review Existing Programs
   New Teachers Experience Antarctica candidates
   Weather station equipment
   Contact List
   discuss potential partnerships (diagram!)

5. Pilot Project discussions

6. Products:
   PPT-TEA responses for LTER PPT
      -mini/module LTER (story line/tenants of LTER) for classroom
       thematic

7. Goals of the Summer workshop 
   identify potential pilot projects and methods
     distance curriculum development/integration
       [weather, wetlands, aquatic smpling, monitoring
	soil monitoring, insect pop, pop, diversity]
   identify potential long-term 
      pilot projects (packaging)
      data sets -[access to student & research sets; CD as well as internet?]
      products-[activities set up to lead students thru careful monioring]
      equipment-[support core teachers->district support?]
      training-[thru CAST/NSTA conferences; train trainers]
   establish communication mechanisms 
     pi in classroom (interaction mode directly involved?; depends on funding)
   identify future participants teachers and educators 
   identify material to be presented by each participant

8. Evaluation criteria
   presentaion format-grading ruberick
   jigsaw on some
   repetition of experiment for consensus on others

9. Funding
   [buy-in by schools could include cost computers/internet access]
   [what % does NSF expect of share this program?
   ie GLACIER 15% of nations teachers we impact]
***************************************************************