Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Building Capacity in the Field Building Capacity in the Field A Cycle of Continuous Improvement

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation A facilitated discussion by program staff of the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program Diane Spresser, Senior Program Coordinator Kathleen Bergin, Program Director Joyce Evans, Senior Program Director James Hamos, Program Director Joan Prival, Program Director Elizabeth VanderPutten, Program Director

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Session Purpose   Enhancing the Competitive Award Process   Building Capacity   Responding to the question: From this session, what one or two changes might enhance your process—from RFP Development through Award Management?

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Whose Capacity?  Proposers  Reviewers  Awardees  Award Managers  And Others

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Capacity Building—Focus on Coherence & Continuous Learning:  Content of the Solicitation/RFP/Application  Community Outreach  Composition of Review Panels  Review Process  Negotiations  Declinations  Managing Awards

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Content of the Solicitation/RFP/Application  What do you want to be accomplished?  How do you expect this work to be accomplished?  What criteria will you use to assess whether the proposal answers these questions?

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Content of the Solicitation/RFP/Application  What do you want to be accomplished?  How do you expect this work to be accomplished?  What criteria will you use to assess whether the proposal answers these questions?  What do they intend to accomplish?

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Content of the Solicitation/RFP/Application  What do you want to be accomplished?  How do you expect this work to be accomplished?  What criteria will you use to assess whether the proposal answers these questions?  What do they intend to accomplish?  How do they expect to do it?

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Content of the Solicitation/RFP/Application  What do you want to be accomplished?  How do you expect this work to be accomplished?  What criteria will you use to assess whether the proposal answers these questions?  What do they intend to accomplish?  How do they expect to do it?  How will they evaluate your work?

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Components of NSF-MSP Over Time  Comprehensive Partnerships and Targeted Partnerships  Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance (RETA)  Targeted Partnerships, Institute Partnerships and RETAs  Institute Partnerships and RETAs

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Community Outreach  Regional and local D.C. workshops  National Professional Meetings  Postings on Website  and phone communication

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Proposal Review 1.What do you view as the Intellectual Merit of this proposal? 2.What do you view as the Broader Impacts of this proposal? 3.If you were negotiating with this Partnership, what major questions (1 or 2) would you want answered before funding?

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation NSF Merit Review Criteria  Intellectual Merit  Broader Impacts

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Reviewer Rating Excellent: Excellent: Outstanding proposal in all respects; deserves highest priority for support. Very Good: Very Good: High quality proposal in nearly all respects; should be supported if at all possible. Good: Good: A quality proposal, worthy of support. Fair: Fair: Proposal lacking in one or more critical aspects; key issues need to be addressed. Poor: Poor: Proposal has serious deficiencies.

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Review Process—Ratings What do you see that is gained by this rating approach? What do you see that is gained by this rating approach? What alternatives are there? What alternatives are there?

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Review Process  Individual Written Reviews,  Individual Ratings,  Panel Discussion and Panel Summary  Finalized Individual Written Reviews and Ratings

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Composition of Review Panels— Mirror of Partnership  Diversity of Expertise—Distinguished STEM researchers, educators and practitioners  Diversity of Institutions/Organizations  Institutions of Higher Education  K-12 Schools, LEAs and SEAs  Business and Industry  Non-profit organizations  Other Stakeholders  Ethnic/Racial/Gender Diversity  Geographic Diversity  Experienced and New Reviewers

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest  No discussion before or after panels with those outside the review process  Proposals should not be kept by panelists  No ideas or other information from proposals may be used  Panelists who have any current or recent or known potential connection to individuals or institutions in a given proposal may not serve as a reviewer nor enter into panel discussions or deliberations

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Declinations  Individual Reviews  Panel Summary  Common Areas Requiring Strengthening

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation Managing Awards  Award Language  Annual Progress Reports  Annual Project Evaluation Reports  Annual Meetings  Site Visits and Reverse Site Visits  On-going communications between NSF staff and Partnership PI/PD

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation From this session, what one or two changes might enhance your process—from RFP Development through Award Management?

Math and Science Partnership National Science Foundation