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