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