Transcript MSP
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
Building Capacity in the
Field
A Cycle of Continuous
Improvement
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
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
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
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?
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
Whose Capacity?
Proposers
Reviewers
Awardees
Award Managers
And Others
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
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
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
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?
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
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?
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
Content of the
Solicitation/RFP/Application
What do you want to
be accomplished?
What do they intend
to accomplish?
How do you expect
this work to be
accomplished?
How do they expect
What criteria will
you use to assess
whether the proposal
answers these
questions?
to do it?
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
Content of the
Solicitation/RFP/Application
What do you want to
be accomplished?
What do they intend
to accomplish?
How do you expect
this work to be
accomplished?
How do they expect
What criteria will
you use to assess
whether the proposal
answers these
questions?
How will they
to do it?
evaluate your work?
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
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
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
Community Outreach
Regional and local D.C. workshops
National Professional Meetings
Postings on Website
E-mail and phone communication
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
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?
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
NSF Merit Review Criteria
Intellectual
Broader
Merit
Impacts
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
Reviewer Rating
Excellent: Outstanding proposal in all
respects; deserves highest priority for
support.
Very Good: High quality proposal in nearly all
respects; should be supported if at all
possible.
Good: A quality proposal, worthy of support.
Fair: Proposal lacking in one or more critical
aspects; key issues need to be addressed.
Poor: Proposal has serious deficiencies.
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
Review Process—Ratings
What do you see that is gained by
this rating approach?
What alternatives are there?
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
Review Process
Individual Written Reviews,
Individual Ratings,
Panel Discussion and Panel
Summary
Finalized Individual Written
Reviews and Ratings
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
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
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
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
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
Declinations
Individual Reviews
Panel Summary
Common Areas Requiring
Strengthening
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
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
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership
From this session, what one or two
changes might enhance your
process—from RFP Development
through Award Management?
National Science Foundation
Math and Science Partnership