Executive Board Minutes - January 2004Jan. 24, 25, and 28, 2004
Miami Beach, FL
Members Present: Charles Holbrow, President; Chris Chiaverina, Past President; Jim Nelson, President Elect; Dick Peterson, Vice President; Mary Beth Monroe, Secretary; Chuck Robertson, Treasurer; Steve Iona, Chair of Section Representatives; Randy Peterson, Vice Chair of Section Representatives; Mary Fehrs, At-Large Member, Deborah Rice, At-Large Member; Chuck Stone, At-Large Member; Jan Tobochnik, Editor, American Journal of Physics (AJP); Karl Mamola, Editor, The Physics Teacher (TPT); Bernard V. Khoury, Executive Officer
Guests: Warren Hein, Valerie Evans, Matthew Potts, Carol Heimpel, John Layman, Bruce Mason, Thad Lurie, Jack Hehn, Kenneth Heller, Ruth Chabay, Sina Kniseley, Leonard Jossem, Ken Krane, David Meltzer, Edward (Joe) Redish, Lillian McDermott, Paula Herron, Wayne Sukow, Dewey Dykstra, Jim Stith
1. Call to Order.
2. Additions to Agenda.
4. Executive Officer’s Report.
In October 2003, the Board allocated up to $5000 from the Klopsteg Fund to support an early planning effort to convene an interdisciplinary conference that would explore areas of common interest among science disciplines. Little progress has been realized. A lot of activity is happening with regard to general science education. However, the activities are being conducted individually by societies. Khoury suggested that it might be more appropriate for the National Research Council to convene such a conference.
Khoury proposed to the PhysTEC leadership, a collaborative of the AIP, the APS and the AAPT, the planning and hosting of a teacher preparation meeting in tandem with one of the AAPT national meetings. The purpose of the meeting would be to provide a forum for focused discussions about the role of physics departments and their faculty in the science preparation of K-12 teachers. However, Khoury had received no response to date.
Khoury advised that at some future time the Board might be asked to discuss the implementation of tier pricing as a response to the reality that library subscriptions to electronic publications can have an erosive effect on the association’s membership. The APS, the American Geophysical Union, and the AIP have implemented tier pricing. However, it is still too early to report if the effort had been successful. Holbrow expressed that the income from journals is not needed to maintain the creation of the journals as stated in Khoury’s report, but rather to sustain the number of memberships in the association. Khoury explained that a library subscription gives access to every computer on the university campus. The subscription rate is not based on the number of computers. Tier pricing reflects the kind of usage the journals would receive. The more research money the university has, the higher the tier price. Tier pricing would provide a range of subscription rates.
The AAPT-APS Departmental Chairs’ conference, which meets every two years, has been set for June 4-6, 2004 at the ACP. No program has yet been defined.
About three years ago, the AAPT, the APS and the AIP endorsed a statement encouraging university physics departments to accept some responsibility for the preparation of new teachers at all levels. The statement appears on the AAPT website and has been published in the Announcer. Subsequently the AAPT, the APS and the AIP wrote to all physics departments, approximately 750, asking them to also endorse this statement. Khoury reported that about 250 departments had accepted this statement to date. This success was communicated to the National Science Foundation with the request that the NSF expand its support of teacher preparation and professional development.
Khoury announced that at her request, Board members would have an opportunity to visit with Millie Dresselhaus, Chair of the AIP Governing Board, at 3 PM on Tuesday during the Winter meeting. Fehrs pointed out that this time coincided with a presentation by Judy Franz, CEO of APS.
The National Academy of Engineering under the leadership of Norman Fortenberry had submitted a proposal to the NSF requesting funding for an electronic journal. This proposal was not funded. The NAE will submit a revision of this proposal to the NSF. To this end, the Academy requested that the AAPT support this effort by allowing the NAE to provide appropriate links to the association.
The AAPT Memberships Department has completed the preparation of a survey to non-members in an effort to learn why people do not join the AAPT. The survey will soon be administered.
Khoury noted that the Miami Beach program had a number of career seminars scheduled, including presentations sponsored by the NSF, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, the Philadelphia school system, and the Committee for Physics in Two-Year Colleges.
Khoury reported that some exhibitors had proposed only having exhibits at one AAPT meeting a year, not two as has been the practice. He opined that the AAPT meeting would suffer if there were not an exhibit show.
AAPT members can attend the March APS/FOE meeting sessions without paying registration fees. The AAPT has reciprocated, allowing APS/FOE members to attend AAPT plenary sessions free.
Khoury has initiated conversations with NASA concerning the use of NASA data in the development of modular instructional materials. He will report developments as they occur.
Ruth Howes and J.D. Garcia have completed a draft revision of the guidelines for undergraduate physics programs. Copies were distributed to Board members and Khoury asked that input be sent to these two.
During discussion of the Executive Officer’s report, R. Peterson expressed concern regarding the description of the relationship between AAPT strategic priorities and membership recruitment. The report stated that an increase of physics content at national meetings would likely not increase membership or attendance at meetings. R. Peterson did not think this statement was necessarily accurate and added that such a statement implied that the AAPT did not want to increase physics content. D. Peterson added that only 20% of the AAPT membership attends meetings. It is his hope that more physics content at national meetings would entice more members to attend.
Stone proposed that the AAPT should possibly identify services, such as reduced membership rates, that could be given to students who are not physics majors.
5. Commission on Services to Four-Year Colleges and Universities (4U).
The most popular idea emerging from the commission was the provision of support for an instructor newly assigned to teach one of the standard upper-division “core” classes. The AAPT could provide sample syllabi, textbook comparisons, sample exam and homework questions, and references to innovative teaching ideas or methods. New faculty have a compelling need for this kind of information. Krane explained that the commission steered away from how the AAPT could implement this service, leaving this to the AAPT. The commission also did not address how the services could impact long-term membership.
The commission recommended that the AAPT provide mentoring for 4U faculty as a long-term sustained effort. This service would require a lot of work by AAPT membership and staff and probably could not be done by the existing committee structure within the AAPT. Additional ideas presented for consideration address re-energizing senior faculty, follow-up sessions for graduates of the New Faculty Workshops who would like refreshers in curricula innovations, and assessment and evaluation of young teachers, especially for post-tenure review.
Krane explained that the commission struggled with identifying ways for the AAPT to enhance physics content. He explained that faculty from physics departments with small financial resources generally only want to attend research conferences. The commission therefore suggested that the AAPT should partner with the APS and the APS Forum on Education in the organization of sessions or workshops at APS divisional meetings.
Krane reported that the commission also talked about the educational component required by NSF research proposals and what the NSF wanted in this area. The commission concluded that the AAPT could possibly provide a panel of senior mentors to review proposals prior to submission. However, Krane reminded the Board that most authors wait until the last minute to complete the writing of their proposals. The commission also suggested that the AAPT could make copies of funded proposals available to potential principal investigators among its membership.
D. Peterson asked if the New Faculty Workshop could have activities addressing upper division courses. Krane explained that the activities would need to be general and not targeting a specific course. Tobochnik stated that websites for such courses would serve all faculty, not just new faculty. He explained that he and Harvey Gould had developed websites for computational physics and statistical mechanics that receive a lot of traffic.
Holbrow asked Krane to clarify why the commission thought that long-term mentoring could not be done by the current committee structure of AAPT. Krane explained that, unlike the National Task Force for Undergraduate Physics (NTFUP) which has not changed membership in its four years, the membership of AAPT committees changes every two or three years.
Holbrow expressed that there is a lot of evidence indicating that mentoring really needs to be face to face. Tobochnik agreed with this and suggested there should be small group meetings between the new faculty and experienced faculty. Krane suggested that the AAPT could organize a half-day meeting at the APS March/April meeting, but unlike the AAPT workshops, the APS session could have several teachers. Robertson commented that a small pre conference at AAPT could develop a session for an APS meeting. Some discussion followed concerning how to best attract teachers to these special sessions.
In conclusion, Holbrow asked Board members to contemplate the ideas presented in the preliminary report from the 4U commission. Krane will prepare a more formal report for the Board’s review during its April meeting. D. Peterson asked the commission to prepare 2-3 action item bullets for Board consideration for inclusion in its report to the Board.
Mason explained that the handouts to Board members only outlined the operations part of the new proposal and the $ 430 K budget would support the core of an actively growing library. Compared to other digital libraries, the AAPT proposed budget is cheap. He anticipated that the completed proposal would request about four times this amount and would provide for six editors. Approximately one million dollars of the requested funding will support the efforts of current editors addressing existing collections. The other societies involved in the collaborative project would be regarded as subcontractors and ComPADRE would provide them with money to build collections.
Submission of the proposal to the NSF requires formal action by the Board. Since the Board will not formally meet until April 24, members were advised that an electronic copy of the proposal would be sent to them about April 1 with an electronic motion authorizing its submission to NSF. To facilitate the review process, Holbrow appointed himself, Tobochnik and K. Heller to a Board subcommittee to critique the preparation of the proposal during the interim between this meeting of the Board and April 1, and to report their findings to the general Board. Iona asked that Robertson and Holbrow provide the Board with indirect costs to the association at the time the submission of the proposal is presented for a vote.
Chiaverina asked how ComPADRE would be funded in the future. Tobochnik opined that an editor would need to be hired to maintain the collections. One source of funding could be contributions from participating members. Mason explained that he could not predict how big the operation management would be. Holbrow pointed out that it was important to realize that this service does not have a subscription fee. Mason reported that he was investigating the assignment of a fee to members accessing portions of the electronic library. Holbrow added that the AAPT needs information concerning how much exposure it will receive as a result of this service.
D. Peterson expressed concern about potential competition from other submitted NSDL grants. Mason explained that while other grant authors would likely have more “web years” of experience (4-5 years compared to the 1.5 years for ComPADRE), the stewardship aspect of the ComPADRE project would look good to NSF. The NSF program officer for this project had commented that ComPADRE looked like a pathway. Hein added that our newness to this area would be in AAPT’s favor. Nelson advised the project management to develop a process that would help users access the information since some of the collections would be overwhelming in size.
Jack Hehn, Education Director at AIP, complimented the work done by Mason as ComPADRE director and added that the Society of Physics Students appreciated the partnership with AAPT in this endeavor. He added that 2004 NSF criteria for funding digital libraries had only been announced the week before and it was possible that the criteria might experience additional changes.
7. Review of Board Reimbursement Policy.
Khoury explained that electronic tickets received by email serve as official documentation for travel reimbursements. Each Board member is allowed $35 per diem for meals and receipts are not required for this reimbursement. Khoury also noted that the AAPT would reimburse a Board member for the costs of a substitute teacher.
If a spouse or guest accompanies a Board member to group dinners, AAPT asks that the association be reimbursed $20. Holbrow requested that the nominal fee be increased to $30 for each guest. The Board expressed general agreement to this suggestion.
8. Executive Sessions I and II.
(Following the completion of Executive Session II, Holbrow recessed the Board until Sunday at 12:30 PM.)
9. Executive Session II.
10. Report from the Announcer Review Committee.
In their review of the responses, the committee did not single out the responses from Board members; all responses were considered collectively. O’Kuma stated that the members were very clear on what they thought the Announcer should be. In response to a question from Stone, O’Kuma explained that response tallies were not made according to AAPT sections, but the responses could produce this information. He added that while the committee did not think it important to review the responses by AAPT sections, they did look at the responses by educational levels. The committee also compared responses from members who frequently attended AAPT meetings from those members who had not attended meetings in the last 5 years. Overall, the committee found the responses to be the same.
Responses received from the survey conducted earlier by Memberships and Benefits indicated that AAPT members do not read the Announcer. However, the response to the Announcer Review survey indicated that members do read this publication. Holbrow asked O’Kuma to comment on this apparent contradiction. O’Kuma expressed that the different response could be attributed to how the members used the Announcer in comparison to the AJP and the TPT. He explained that the AJP and TPT were read regularly as they directly impact the classroom. The Announcer, on the other hand, is read leisurely when members have the time.
O’Kuma did agree that the committee’s survey indicated a strong readership for the Announcer. O’Kuma explained that members desired a standard format for the Announcer, saying it was hard to find sections in the current publication. In response to a question from Robertson, O’Kuma reported that the membership did not express a desire to reduce the number of issues published each year. He also added that members wanted to keep the content the same. Nelson asked if the Treasurer’s Report should be omitted from the Announcer since the readership indicated that they did not read it. Khoury explained that the AAPT is required by constitution to provide its membership with reports of the financial status of the organization. O’Kuma added that the members were not really objecting to any item printed in the Announcer, but commented that they did not read the Treasurer’s Report.
Holbrow asked O’Kuma to recap the recommendations from the review committee and the problems the Board should address. Based upon membership responses, O’Kuma explained that the committee recommended that
1. AAPT keep the Announcer the same as it is currently.
2. AAPT should develop a web presence for the Announcer even though members still want the print version. In discussion of this recommendation, O’Kuma explained that members want the web version to be the same as the print version. Some members also want the advertisements published on the web version.
3. The Editor needs to be a physicist operating out of the national office. Holbrow expressed that this recommendation could mean that the Executive Officer should work harder or that additional staff should be hired.
4. The committee recommended that the AAPT budget be allocated to finance the recommendations itemized in its report. O’Kuma explained that the committee did not estimate the costs of implementing recommended changes because the expenses would depend on the directions the Board will elect to take.
Nelson inquired as to what changes would require a substantial increase in staff. O’Kuma explained that some of the recommendations would require additional time which would translate as additional staff, such as incorporating letters to the editor within the Announcer. D. Peterson commented that hiring a physicist to help with new sections in the publication could be expensive. He added that a change to a more scholarly publication would mean a big change to the association. O’Kuma clarified that physics news referred to news at the policy level rather than news from the research communities. Heller suggested that the AAPT might be able to reprint physics news published in the APS Forum on Education newsletter.
O’Kuma emphasized the need to print articles of interest to the international community and added that this addition would require more time and effort. Holbrow suggested that the AAPT might assemble a list of correspondents in different countries.
In summary, O’Kuma explained that 2500 members responded to the committee’s survey. The committee viewed this as a large response and a good representation of the feelings of the AAPT membership. O’Kuma noted that the responses peaked about 12 hours after being sent. He tracked the responses on a daily basis and noted that after 150-200 responses, the percentages in the answers did not appreciably change.
Holbrow then asked Khoury, as Editor of the Announcer, to prepare a response to this review for Board consideration during its April meeting. Monroe asked what portion of the report should be published. Holbrow suggested that the Board leave this to the discretion of the Editor. In response to a question from Iona, Holbrow confirmed that the report was a public report and could be shared with the Section Reps during the Miami Beach meeting.
During the summer 2004, PhysTEC, in association with the AAPT, will host a meeting of all past, present and future Teachers in Residence (TIRs) and some teachers mentored by the TIRs. Some of the PhysTEC activities will be cross activities with the AAPT/PTRA program.
Layman explained that the APS will use Campaign of Physics funds to add six new Primary Participating Institutions to the project. He also noted that the project management had not yet produced wording for a formal agreement among the three societies identifying the roles of each society in the collaboration.
In response to a question from Nelson, Khoury explained that the Campaign for Physics originated as a joint fund-raising effort of APS, AAPT and AIP. The AIP withdrew from the effort but APS and the AAPT continued. As a result, the AAPT realized some funds that benefited the PSRC and the PTRA program. Although the activities ceased for a while, the APS maintained a Campaign staff. The APS will resume this fund raising activity to support the PhysTEC activities.
Warren Hein, also Co Principal Investigator, also expressed the hope that the AAPT Committee on Teacher Preparation would develop sessions at future meetings of the AAPT, which would be supportive of the PhysTEC program and the PhysTEC Coalition of physics departments. In its report to the Board, the project management noted that one of the recommendations of the Year Two Evaluation Report for PhysTEC was that the responsibility of each participating society in the collaborative must be more clearly stated and accepted.
12. PER Publications.
“The recent dramatic expansion of activity in physics education research among AAPT members has not been matched by commensurate increases in publication venues. Although the impact of this research field within the broader physics community has sharply increased, the viability of its continued existence is dependent upon substantially expanded publication opportunities in the near future. The American Journal of Physics has served for three decades as the primary publication venue for results in physics education research. An increased number of pages devoted to physics education research is consistent both with AJP’s historical role and with the greater prominence in recent years of the PER community within AAPT. We recommend (1) considering PER submissions to the main section of AJP on a par with submissions in other subject areas, (2) increasing the number of pages allocated to the PER Section, and (3) allowing the option of increasing the publication frequency of the PER Section from its present state.”
Joe Redish explained that while there is not a backlog of PER papers accepted for publication, there is a backlog in the system. PER reviewers take more time than usual to review articles for publication in the AJP since the PER Section appears only twice a year. This practice contributes to the community perception that the number of PER publications is capped. Redish reported that currently there were 20 papers in the review process which he thinks will be accepted for publication over the next 2.5 years. He asked if the number of pages allocated to the PER Section could be increased over the next two years to 72 pages per year. He explained that there was a need to find a mechanism to allow this field of physics to grow. Redish surmised that there would be a need to find an alternative publication mode as he anticipated that the PER publications would outgrow the AJP, somewhat on a parallel with the separation of Physical Review Letters from the AJP. He emphasized that the PER community had to advance to the next step and that at present the community was not responding well to the perceived page cap on PER publications.
D. Peterson asked what practical steps the AAPT could take to keep this perception from occurring again in two years. Redish contributed that during his tenure as PER Section Editor he did not reject very many papers, but gave the papers to good reviewers who provided a lot of feedback and mentoring.
Khoury explained that during the meeting of the Publications Committee, Tobochnik had made the statement that he could report the acceptance rate but not the rejection rate. A research journal has a much higher acceptance rate because the readers want something new. Tobochnik pointed out that about 70% of the submitted papers are technically correct but many of these are not printed simply because he gets too many submissions of one type. He added that more theoretical papers are rejected than experimental articles.
Meltzer expressed that this was a legitimate concern but described the PER community as not being at that point. The PER community does not have that many paper submissions. Khoury explained that a well-balanced publication of articles is not just a financial issue but also one of policy. Meltzer expressed that there is a need to publish some follow-up to published research articles. Redish presented another point for consider. Currently the PER is under the microscope and therefore the PER publications need to maintain a higher standard than other areas of physics. McDermott commented that if the constraint of publishing PER articles only twice a year were removed, the problem would resolve itself.
Tobochnik stated that he agreed with the statements made by Redish and McDermott but reminded them that both PER members and non-members review submitted articles. He also pointed out that the number of pages allotted to the PER Section is also a constraint on other areas of physics since the size of the AJP is set by the Board.
(Holbrow asked the PER visitors to continue informal discussions with the Board during break time.)
13. 2004 Budget.
In response to a question from Holbrow, Robertson explained that the primary reason for such a large deficit is due to unreimbursed indirect costs. Hein explained that in recent years the income had covered this loss. He also estimated that AAPT has lost about $140 K in subscription revenue.
Holbrow asked the source of the uncertainty in next year’s budget. Hein explained that two staff positions have not been filled and Khoury added that the AAPT does not progress through externally funded projects as quickly as predicted. Holbrow asked how the AAPT could produce a budget with no deficit. Hein said the AAPT could again raise subscription rates and membership rates and recover lost subscriptions. Khoury cautioned against the suggestion by Holbrow to cut the number of AAPT programs, saying this would be severe and could affect staffing.
Holbrow expressed concern that the staff presented a budget assumption in the fall 2003 to have a balanced budget, but merely dropped the assumption when a deficit was projected. Khoury explained that the long-term account reflected cash items while the operating budget also reflects non-cash items such as depreciation of the Dodge Building. He reported that the depreciation in the Executive Office was about $100K, not counting the Dodge Building.
14. Executive Session I.
15. 2004 Budget Continued.
16. AIP-Produced Television Spots.
Khoury described the DBIS as having the potential to have a marked impact on public interest in and support for physics. Therefore, support for this AIP service would be in line with the AAPT strategic goal of “physics for all”. He further explained that our contribution of support would help the AIP obtain additional funding from other cooperating organizations. The AIP business plan provides for a breakeven status once the institute acquires subscriptions from the majority of the television markets.
In response to a question from Holbrow, Khoury explained that the television spots do not credit any organization as the news segments are used locally in whatever way the television stations chooses.
Fehrs moved that the AAPT provide $10 K from the Klopsteg Fund to AIP in support of the DBIS service. Nelson seconded the motion. Jim Stith, AIP Physics Resources, (having just arrived at the meeting) explained that the television spots have no branding whatsoever. He estimated that about 30-35% of the spots address physical science and the others address life science, engineering and mathematics. The AIP received funding from the NSF to support part of the DBIS production in exchange for the AIP funding an evaluation of the service. Stith explained that a group at the University of Wisconsin would conduct the evaluation. The motion passed unanimously.
17. AIP Physics Resources.
The APS decided to move the publication of its Physical Review D from AIP publishing to another publisher. The AIP will realize a loss of $ 1.5 million. The APS will pay the new publisher $42 a page which is $27 less per page from the AIP charges. The implication of this could result in a loss of significant revenue to AIP. Stith explained that the first thought to recover the loss would be to cut its expenses by one-third. Each director working for Stith was asked to study the programs under their supervision and report to him the impact of the elimination of their programs. Stith explained that he would then review the entire package, identifying services that will be cut. He said one metric would be to keep services for which the public is willing to pay.
Physics Today continues to realize losses attributed to a growing non-US subscriber. Stith explained that the AIP loses $20 a year for each new foreign subscription.
The 2003 Industrial Physics Forum (originally called Corporate Associates Meeting) was held in October 2003 in San Jose, California. The AIP continues to look for ways to attract academic types to attend and interact with industry/government types. The meeting was not well attended. Stith reported that the AIP now has 37 corporate associates compared to 120 associates a few years back. The Industrial Physicist (TIP) initiated a series of articles profiling the AIP societies in an effort to enhance cooperation between TIP and the AIP societies. The December issue included the profile of the Optical Society of America. The APS profile will appear in the February issue and the American Astronomical Society has submitted an article for these series.
Stith commented that he does not understand how a different publisher will be able to publish the Physical Review D so much more cheaply. The contracts for publishing A, B and C have not come up yet and it is not clear if APS will opt for a different publisher for these publications. He reminded the AAPT Board that AIP is owned by ten member societies and should AIP lose its services, the organization would change from what it was created to be.
18. Treasurer’s Report.
19. Secretary’s Report.
Monroe reported the results of the 2003 AAPT national elections. 2013 votes were cast in this election. Ken Heller was elected Vice President, Ruth Chabay was elected At-Large Member representing four-year colleges and universities, and Chuck Robertson was elected to his second consecutive term as Treasurer. These will assume office at the close of the winter meeting in Miami Beach.
During its October 2003 meeting, the Executive Board approved the charges to the PSRC Review Committee and the Resource Letter Review Committee. At that time Steve Turley (Chair) and Toni Sauncy were appointed to the Resource Letter Review Committee and Patsy Ann Johnson (Chair) to the PSRC Review Committee. Monroe asked the Board to approve the appointment of Richard Jacob to Resource Letter Review Committee and the appointments of Nancy Watson and Dan MacIsaac to the PSRC Review Committee. The Board accepted her recommendations, completing the appointments to these review committees.
Monroe reminded members who would be serving on the 2004 Executive Board to sign the Conflict of Interest forms located in their Board Packets and to give her one copy.
20. Vice President’s Report.
The Sacramento meeting scheduled for August 2004 will have a theme of “physics of sports and the human body”. Peter Urone is the local contact person. The Physics of Beams Division of the APS has agreed to sponsor a session for this meeting.
The Winter 2005 meeting will be held in Albuquerque. The World Year of Physics 2005 will be emphasized at this time. D. Peterson explained that he would be looking for related ideas from area committees concerning special speakers and activities for this meeting. The Albuquerque meeting will have a sub theme of diversity. Appropriate to this, the Society of Hispanic Physicists will be meeting with the AAPT. R. Peterson suggested that some activities involving Los Alamos and Sandia laboratories should be developed for this meeting.
The AAPT’s 75th Anniversary will be commemorated during the Summer 2005 meeting.
21. Report from the President Elect.
Nelson reported that PTRA had selected 25 rural sites. He referred Board members to the PTRA report appearing as Information Item G posted on the Executive Board secured website.
22. President’s Report.
23. Annual Visit to the NSF.
During the first visit, Joseph Bordogna described efforts to increase the participation in science by U.S. citizens. He also explained NSF’s increasing interest in establishing interactions between science and education. Bordogna also described the valuable contributions that community colleges can make in the recruitment of minorities and women to the science and math disciplines.
During the visit with DUE, Duncan McBride, Rosemary Haggett, and Ted Hodapp and AAPT officers discussed the status of AAPT projects funded by NSF, including the New Faculty Workshop, SPIN-UP and SPIN-UP/TYC, and the Introductory Calculus-Based Physics Conference held at the end of October. Hodapp reported that the AAAS would host on behalf of the NSF an interdisciplinary conference during the Spring 2004. This conference would serve as a forum for the leaders of different societies to share their activities stemming from science/math education research.
Jack Lightbody and Joseph Dehmer in the physics division were excited to learn that additional institutions were being added as Primary Participating Institutions in PhysTEC. Discussion also centered on how the AAPT could help potential principal investigators meet the project criteria addressing education.
Wayne Sukow, ESIE program officer, described how the criteria for ESIE had changed during the last year. He explained that under the new guidelines, PTRA could not get funding. He recommended that a new PTRA proposal would fare better with reviewers if the project proposed to evaluate the PTRA workshops in a systematic way to determine why the workshops had been so successful. He also advised the PTRA directors to identify and mentor younger leadership. Sukow also reported that he was retiring from the NSF and the NSF was in need of physics rotators. He asked the AAPT for help in communicating this within the physics community.
(Holbrow recessed the Board until the third meeting of the Board, Wednesday, January 28.)