NSF 09-507: Math and Science Partnership (MSP)

Program Solicitation 09-507

National Science Foundation Directorate for Education & Human Resources      Division of Undergraduate Education

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

     February 17, 2009

      Institute Partnerships, MSP-Start Partnerships, Phase II Partnerships, RETA Projects

     February 24, 2009

      Innovation through Institutional Integration

     August 20, 2009

      Targeted Partnerships

     August 25, 2009

      Innovation through Institutional Integration

     April 07, 2010

      Innovation through Institutional Integration

Revision Notes

Summary Of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title: 

Synopsis of Program:

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

• Kathleen B. Bergin, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, telephone: (703) 292-5171, email: kbergin@nsf.gov

• James E. Hamos, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, telephone: (703) 292-4687, email: jhamos@nsf.gov

• Daniel P/ Maki, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, telephone: (703) 292-4620, email: dmaki@nsf.gov

• Joan T. Prival, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, telephone: (703) 292-4635, email: jprival@nsf.gov

• Elizabeth VanderPutten, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, telephone: (703) 292-5147, email: evanderp@nsf.gov

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

• 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award:  Standard Grant or Continuing Grant

Estimated Number of Awards:    15 to 24 MSP projects total, including 4-6 Institute Partnerships, 2-4 MSP-Start Partnerships, 4-6 Phase II Partnerships and 2-3 RETA awards for the February 17, 2009, competition, pending availability of funds. 3-5 Targeted Partnerships will be made in the Fiscal Year 2010 for the August 20, 2009, competition, pending availability of funds. Up to 10 continuing awards will be made in this Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) competition, pending availability of funds.

Anticipated Funding Amount:   $35,000,000  for the MSP Program: Up to $35,000,000 in FY 2009 and up to $35,000,000 in FY 2010, pending availability of funds. $5,500,000 for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) projects across multiple EHR programs pending the availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Organization Limit: 

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Lead partner eligibility for any of the Partnership categories – Targeted, Institute, MSP-Start or Phase II – is limited to an institution of higher education or an eligible non-profit organization (or consortia of such institutions or organizations). 

  Eligibility for Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance (RETA) projects is open to all categories of proposers identified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide.

  Eligibility for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) is limited to institutions of higher education (including two- and four-year colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US. If  the proposal is exclusively for I³ STEM educational or related research, then all categories of proposers identified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide are eligible to submit.

  Any proposal to the MSP Program should be a single submission that includes support for all partners that are requesting funding from NSF.

PI Limit: 

The Principal Investigator of a proposal for any of the Partnership categories – Targeted, Institute, MSP-Start or Phase II – must be a mathematician, scientist or engineer and a regular faculty member in a mathematics, science or engineering department in a higher education core partner.  One or more co-Principal Investigators must be representative(s) from the K-12 core partner organization(s).

The Principal Investigator for an Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) proposal must be the university provost or equivalent chief academic officer, unless the proposal is exclusively for I³ STEM educational or related research.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 

An institution of higher education, non-profit organization or consortia of such institutions or organizations may be the LEAD partner in only one proposal per Partnership category – Targeted, Institute, MSP-Start and Phase II.

Organizations may be a non-Lead partner on more than one proposal.

For this competition, an institution of higher education and its institutionally affiliated foundation or research foundation are considered to be the same organization.

A central organization that acts as fiscal agent for multiple institutions in a university system is not considered to be the same as the individual colleges and universities that are part of the system, and may act as fiscal agent for one or more proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. 

RETA proposers may submit one or more RETA proposals.

For Fiscal Year 2010, proposals are being solicited in nine EHR programs that advance the goals of Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³):  CREST, GSE, HBCU-UP, ITEST, LSAMP, MSP, Noyce, RDE, and TCUP.  Given the focus on institutional integration, an institution may submit only one proposal to this I³ competition.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 

None Specified

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Not Applicable

• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable

• Full Proposals:
  • Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.
  • Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide)

B. Budgetary Information

• Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is not required under this solicitation.

• Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:  Not Applicable

• Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

• Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

       February 17, 2009

        Institute Partnerships, MSP-Start Partnerships, Phase II Partnerships, RETA Projects

       February 24, 2009

        Innovation through Institutional Integration

       August 20, 2009

        Targeted Partnerships

       August 25, 2009

        Innovation through Institutional Integration

       April 07, 2010

        Innovation through Institutional Integration

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria:   National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:   Standard NSF award conditions apply.

Reporting Requirements:   Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

I. Introduction

II. Program Description

III. Award Information

IV. Eligibility Information

Organization Limit: 

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Lead partner eligibility for any of the Partnership categories – Targeted, Institute, MSP-Start or Phase II – is limited to an institution of higher education or an eligible non-profit organization (or consortia of such institutions or organizations). 

  Eligibility for Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance (RETA) projects is open to all categories of proposers identified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide.

  Eligibility for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) is limited to institutions of higher education (including two- and four-year colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US. If  the proposal is exclusively for I³ STEM educational or related research, then all categories of proposers identified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide are eligible to submit.

  Any proposal to the MSP Program should be a single submission that includes support for all partners that are requesting funding from NSF.

PI Limit: 

The Principal Investigator of a proposal for any of the Partnership categories – Targeted, Institute, MSP-Start or Phase II – must be a mathematician, scientist or engineer and a regular faculty member in a mathematics, science or engineering department in a higher education core partner.  One or more co-Principal Investigators must be representative(s) from the K-12 core partner organization(s).

The Principal Investigator for an Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) proposal must be the university provost or equivalent chief academic officer, unless the proposal is exclusively for I³ STEM educational or related research.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 

An institution of higher education, non-profit organization or consortia of such institutions or organizations may be the LEAD partner in only one proposal per Partnership category – Targeted, Institute, MSP-Start and Phase II.

Organizations may be a non-Lead partner on more than one proposal.

For this competition, an institution of higher education and its institutionally affiliated foundation or research foundation are considered to be the same organization.

A central organization that acts as fiscal agent for multiple institutions in a university system is not considered to be the same as the individual colleges and universities that are part of the system, and may act as fiscal agent for one or more proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. 

RETA proposers may submit one or more RETA proposals.

For Fiscal Year 2010, proposals are being solicited in nine EHR programs that advance the goals of Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³):  CREST, GSE, HBCU-UP, ITEST, LSAMP, MSP, Noyce, RDE, and TCUP.  Given the focus on institutional integration, an institution may submit only one proposal to this I³ competition.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 

None Specified

Additional Eligibility Info:

PARTNERS DEFINITION AND ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTNERSHIPS

Targeted, Institute, MSP-Start and Phase II Partnership proposals are developed by Partnerships that must include CORE Partners and may also include SUPPORTING Partners.

Each proposal to the MSP Program for a Targeted, Institute, MSP-Start or Phase II Partnership should be a single submission that includes support for all partners that are requesting funding from NSF. Collaborative proposals, as defined in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (Chapter II, Section D.3. Collaborative Proposals), are not appropriate and will be returned without review.

CORE PARTNERS

Core partner organizations share responsibility and accountability for the MSP project. Core partner organizations ARE REQUIRED to provide evidence of their commitment to undergo the institutional change necessary to sustain the partnership effort beyond the funding period. This is what distinguishes core partner organizations from other supporting partner organizations.

Core partner organizations in each Partnership MUST include:

• At least one institution of higher education (including 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities) AND
• At least one K-12 local school district.

Within core partnering institution(s) of higher education, the Partnership must include science, mathematics, and/or engineering departments. Community colleges and minority-serving institutions are encouraged to participate as core partner organizations in MSP projects.

Core partner organizations may also include other stakeholder organizations in K-12 mathematics and science education, such as state education agencies, business and industry, science centers and museums, disciplinary and professional societies, research laboratories, district-level educational support centers, private foundations and other public and private organizations with interests in K-12 mathematics and science education. The participation of scientists, mathematicians and/or engineers from these core partner organizations is encouraged.

 SUPPORTING PARTNERS

Supporting partners include important stakeholders and stakeholder organizations in K-12 mathematics and science education, including parents and families and the types of partner organizations described above. The main distinction between core and supporting partners is that while supporting partners clearly add value to the proposed project, they are not required to commit to the institutional change necessary to sustain project activities beyond the funding period.

 LEAD PARTNER DEFINITION AND ELIGIBILITY

For all Targeted, Institute, MSP-Start and Phase II Partnerships, one of the core partner organizations serves as the LEAD partner and submits the MSP proposal on behalf of the Partnership. The lead partner accepts management and fiduciary responsibility for the project.

Lead partner eligibility for any of the Partnership categories – Targeted, Institute, MSP-Start or Phase II – is limited to an institution of higher education or an eligible non-profit organization (or consortia of such institutions or organizations). 

PARTNERSHIP LEADERSHIP TEAM DEFINITION AND ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

The Partnership Leadership Team MUST include those individuals identified in the proposal as Principal Investigator and co-Principal Investigators.

The Principal Investigator of each Targeted, Institute, MSP-Start or Phase II Partnership MUST be a mathematician, scientist or engineer and a regular faculty member in a mathematics, science or engineering department in a higher education core partner. In addition, one or more co-Principal Investigators MUST be a representative(s) from the K-12 core partner organization(s). 

The Partnership Leadership Team for all Partnerships should also include a Project Director who is responsible for day-to-day management of the project; the Project Director need not be identified as a Principal Investigator or co-Principal Investigator.

Eligibility for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) is limited to institutions of higher education (including two- and four-year colleges) located and accredited in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members, unless the proposal is exclusively for I³ STEM educational or related research.  An institution may not receive more than one I³ award. 

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.

• Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.

• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/docs/grantsgovguide.pdf). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov.

The following instructions supplement the GPG guidelines.

After selecting the MSP program solicitation number on the Cover Sheet, the "NSF Unit Consideration" must be specified - select either Targeted, Institute, MSP-Start, Phase II, RETA, or Innovation Through Institutional Integration (I³).

ALL PROPOSALS MUST CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS:

PROJECT SUMMARY

Provide a one-page summary that briefly describes the project vision, goals and work to be undertaken. For Targeted, Institute or Phase II Partnerships, the Project Summary should begin by listing the following: the title of the proposed project, the name of the lead partner, the name(s) of the additional core and supporting partners. The text of the Summary should include, where applicable, the numbers of teachers to be directly engaged in the project, the number of new teachers that will be prepared, and the number of students (including grade ranges) who will benefit from the proposed work. For MSP-Start and RETA projects, the Project Summary should begin by stating the title of the proposed project, the lead institution and names of other partners to be involved in the proposed work. Note that for all proposals the Project Summary MUST address both NSB-approved merit review criteria in separate statements. NSF will return without review proposals that do not address both merit review criteria in separate statements.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

FOR TARGETED AND INSTITUTE PARTNERSHIPS

The Project Description should address ALL of the MSP Key Features described in Section II of this solicitation, within the following elements.

Vision, Goals and Outcomes

A proposal must clearly describe the Partnership’s vision, goals and anticipated outcomes with respect to all of the MSP Key Features. This part of the proposal should also present one or more research questions that will be pursued in the course of the Partnership activities. 

The Partnership's vision and goals for the project are informed by relevant baseline K-12 student and teacher data, and are consistent with relevant State mathematics or science student academic achievement standards. (Baseline data and quantitative outcome goals and annual benchmarks are to be provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS section of the proposal.

For the higher education partner(s), describe the institutional context for this project and the anticipated work in K-12 science and mathematics education; the degree and kinds of prior involvements/experiences with K-12 education or disciplinary faculty in the sciences, mathematics and engineering; and a description of relevant institutional policies/practices that reward such faculty involvement.

For the K-12 partner(s), describe the context within which the proposed work will occur, including curricular, instructional, and technological initiatives within which this STEM effort would sit. Also include any policy endeavors that would be supportive of this proposed effort.

The proposal should provide evidence of (a) an effective partnership among core and supporting organizations that will work together to realize the project’s vision and goals, (b) the participation of all key stakeholders (including teachers, faculty and administrators) in project planning and design and (c) sufficient capacity in and preparation of the higher education partners to support the scale and scope of the project, especially the number of teacher participants.

Lessons learned from previous and current support, including a discussion of successes and of failures, should be included. The proposal should also clearly indicate how the intended work differs from, builds on or is otherwise informed by prior efforts, especially those supported by NSF.   

For Targeted Partnerships, (a) provide data on the numbers of in-service teachers who will participate and the expected numbers of hours of structured professional development for a typical participant over the life of the project and (b) provide data on the numbers and diversity of teachers who will be reached through strategies intended to increase teacher quantity and quality – proposed strategies may target teacher preparation activities and/or those activities that impact the induction period for new teachers as a means of improving retention in the teacher workforce.

For Institute Partnerships, provide data on the numbers of in-service teachers who will participate and the expected numbers of hours of structured professional development for a typical participant over the life of the project.

Research and Implementation Framework

Describe in detail the plan by which the Partnership will achieve the project vision, goals and anticipated quantitative outcomes by means of a coherent research and implementation plan. This description should include the research or evidence base that constitutes the foundation on which the proposed work rests. The proposal should offer a clear rationale for the strategies being proposed, including theoretical foundations that are tied to the appropriate research and literature in mathematics and science education. Consistent with the MSP Key Feature on Evidence-Based Design and Outcomes, the proposal should identify the research questions to be studied and show how the design of the project will allow warranted claims that the activities conducted by the Partnership contributed to the measured outcomes. 

Describe the creative, strategic actions that extend beyond common approaches and offer innovative pre-service and in-service programs that promise significant improvements in student and teacher workforce outcomes, as a result of the work of the Partnership. All project work directed towards improvement of the teacher workforce should support the implementation of challenging courses and curricula to result in improved K-12 student learning and achievement in mathematics and/or the sciences. Proposals for projects that will focus on a critical juncture in education should articulate strategies that portend to increase student success in mathematics or science in the transition from (a) elementary to middle school, (b) middle school to college, OR (c) high school to college.

All proposals must include a robust research design that discusses the theoretical or research base for the proposed activities, a clear description of these activities, the proposed assessment instruments that would be used to measure outcomes, and the logic of how reasonable, warranted conclusions will link the activities to the outcomes. While expecting partnership work to include a rigorous research component, the MSP program does not specify methodology which should be determined by the research questions. The individual(s) who will conduct the research should be identified in the proposal. The research component of the proposed work is in addition to the Evaluation Plan (described below) that will demonstrate impact of the project, and goes beyond documentation of implementation to the further generation of evidence.

Consistent with the Partnership-Driven Key Feature, describe how each partner will contribute to the proposed work, with particular emphasis on the contributions scientists, mathematicians and/or engineers will make. If applicable, describe how the Partnership collaborates with or complements other K-12 educational initiatives supported by NSF and/or other private or public funds.

Each Institute curriculum is also expected to include leadership development and the preparation necessary to work with adult learners, as well as a component that assists participants in working in the implementation of contemporary research findings on effective classroom practice and the science of learning. Therefore, Institute Partnership proposals should offer clear descriptions of the course offerings and academic year follow-up activities that constitute the structure of the proposed Institute.  Similar detail should be described for the professional development and pre-service instruction to be offered in a Targeted Partnership.

Provide a project timeline that correlates with the proposed action plan and the quantitative outcome goals and annual benchmarks described in the SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS  section of the proposal.

Evaluation Plan

Describe the Evaluation Plan that will guide project progress annually and will measure the impact of the work described in the action plan, including a description of the instruments/metrics by which partners will document, measure and report on the project’s progress toward realizing improved student and teacher outcomes. The Evaluation Plan should directly relate to the annual benchmarks and outcome goals in the SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS section of the proposal. Formative evaluation should provide evidence of the strengths and weaknesses of the project, informing the Partnership's understanding of what works and what does not in order to inform project progress and success. Summative evaluation should give an objective analysis of qualitative and quantitative data, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the project on student and teacher outcomes and K-20 institutional change. Although the Evaluation Plan will be developed with input from the Partnership, objective analyses and findings require either an external evaluator or an objective evaluator within a partner institution who is clearly separate and distinct from the partnership participants and their departments/units (e.g., in a department/unit within a university that is not part of the Partnership itself). The qualifications of the evaluator(s) must be provided in the proposal.

Partnership Management/Governance Plan

Describe the management plan, demonstrating that all partners are fully engaged to realize the partnership’s vision, goals and outcomes.

Describe in detail the specific roles, responsibilities and time commitments of the members of the Partnership Leadership Team. Also provide the number of scientists, mathematicians and/or engineers who will be engaged in the work of the project and provide information on their intellectual contributions/roles and responsibilities, referring to individuals listed in a Disciplinary Partner table located in the SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS .

Institutional Change and Sustainability

Describe how the proposed action plan will result in institutional change within all core partner organizations to ensure sustainability of project ideas, practices and work. Include plans to redirect resources and develop/revise and implement policies and practices critical for the work of the Partnership and necessary for project sustainability.

FOR MSP-START PARTNERSHIPS

The Project Description should contain the following elements.

Developing the Partnership

Identify the initial institutions and organizations – and their personnel – likely to be engaged in the MSP-Start Partnership, although additional institutions and organizations may be added as appropriate during the award period. Describe why these organizations are coming together at this time and the process by which they will advance and strengthen the Partnership. Identify the disciplinary faculty to be involved, their titles and departments, and the roles they will take within the Partnership; other faculty to be involved may also be listed.

Address the process by which the MSP-Start Partnership will conduct a needs analysis that will provide a framework for future work, engage STEM faculty in the work, and address the five MSP Key Features.

Demonstrate how the work will build on the literature about STEM teaching and learning as well as funding from other NSF and related projects.

Evaluation and Management

Include plans for formative and summative evaluation of the MSP-Start award. Additionally, outline the process for developing a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of a potential full MSP Targeted or Institute Partnership. Although the Evaluation Plan will be developed with input from the Partnership, objective analyses and findings require either an external evaluator or an objective evaluator within a partner institution who is clearly separate and distinct from the partnership participants and their departments/units (e.g., in a department/unit within a university that is not part of the Partnership itself). The qualifications of the evaluator(s) must be provided in the proposal.

A management plan and timeline for activities should be included in the proposal. Describe the management and administrative structure, including identification of the members of a Partnership Leadership Team, demonstrating the capability for conducting the proposed work.

FOR PHASE II MSP PROJECTS>

The Project Description should contain the following elements.

Results from Prior NSF Support

A critical aspect of a Phase II proposal will be the linkage to prior support through the MSP program. Describe the evidence-based outcomes of prior MSP support to include improvement in student achievement, increased enrollment and success in higher level mathematics and science coursework, implementation of rigorous challenging courses and curricula, increased depth of disciplinary content knowledge by teachers, impact on STEM disciplinary faculty, policy changes at the K-12 and IHE levels, programmatic changes at the IHE level, and other unique project specific outcomes. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals should also be listed. The proposal must explain how the results of the prior support and evaluation findings inform the proposed Phase II work.

Research and Implementation Framework

A Phase II project should be framed around specific research questions. The proposal must state the research questions, describe the research methodologies to be employed to answer the questions, and name the researcher(s) who will conduct the work. Include a list of quantitative benchmarks to be achieved for student outcomes, teacher enhancement, and curriculum, and a description of qualitative programmatic and policy changes to be attained within the Core IHE and K-12 Partners.

Describe how the Partnership will conduct focused studies that extend one or a limited number of strategies previously implemented by the MSP and document the aspects of bringing successful strategies to scale. Indicate the role of STEM disciplinary faculty in the Phase II work and how the Phase II work will advance the teaching and learning of science and/or mathematics.  In addition, the plan should be explicit in describing a proactive dissemination plan that will be made widely available to others, who can benefit from and/or implement the results emerging from this work. 

Evaluation

All Phase II proposals must include a detailed Evaluation Plan, including tools and methodologies to be used for the evaluation, which will demonstrate impact of the project and go beyond documentation of implementation to the generation of evidence. Describe how the current Phase II proposal contributes to longitudinal study of aspects of the prior MSP work, and how ongoing submission of data to the MSP-MIS contributes to the study. For the analyses and findings to be seen as objective, it is a requirement to have either an external evaluator or an objective evaluator within a partner institution who is clearly separate and distinct from the partnership participants and their departments/units (e.g., in a department/unit within a university that is not part of the Partnership itself).  The qualifications of the evaluator(s) must be provided in the proposal.

Partnership Management/Governance Plan

The proposal must list the partners which will comprise the Phase II Partnership, including the designation of those that are considered Core Partners, meaning they commit to explicit new institutional change, and those that are considered Supporting Partners. A Disciplinary Partners table in the SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS  section of the proposal must include a list of the disciplinary faculty to be involved, their titles and departments, whether they have been involved previously with the Partnership or are new to the work, and the roles they will take within the Partnership; other faculty to be involved may also be listed.

Describe the management and administrative structure, including identification of the members of a Partnership Leadership Team, demonstrating the capability for conducting the proposed work. There should be clear evidence of a full partnership among the Core Partners in terms of roles, responsibilities, accountability and decision making. The proposal should explicitly commit to continue submission of data to the MIS.

Institutional Change and Sustainability

Provide plans to sustain activities and impact of the project beyond Phase II support, indicate new institutional change expected to emanate from Phase II, and for advancing the work beyond the Partnership. 

FOR RESEARCH, EVALUATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (RETA) PROJECTS

The Project Description should contain the following elements.

Research Base

Discuss the current state of knowledge relevant to the proposed work, including a brief review of the relevant literature, and the gap(s) in the base of current knowledge or practice to be addressed by the proposed work. If the proposal builds on prior work, indicate what was learned from this work and how any lessons learned are incorporated in the proposed project.

Methodologies and Plan of Work

Methodologies must be well defined, rigorous and appropriate and should result in valid, reliable findings. The logic among research question, method, evidence, analysis and inference should be well articulated. Discuss how the sample of teachers and/or students will be chosen and that the sample will be sufficient for the proposed analysis.  If a new analytic method is proposed, discuss the potential benefits and issues with the method. 

Discuss how the project expects to interact with the Partnerships, including an estimate of the number of Partnerships to be involved and the time and effort to be required of them. The proposal should clearly indicate the benefits to the Partnerships by virtue of their participation. NSF will work with the awardees under this solicitation and with the Partnerships to ensure appropriate interactions among all projects.

Evaluation, Data Sharing and Dissemination

Projects should have an external advisory board to serve as a peer review mechanism.  Members should be chosen to provide the appropriate statistical and STEM expertise needed by the project.

Management Capability

Demonstrate that the submitting team has the capability to manage the project, organize the work and meet deadlines.

FOR INNOVATION THROUGH INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION (I³) PROJECTS

The proposal should articulate the project’s vision, goals, and anticipated outcomes and describe how the project will achieve them.  The proposal should draw on the existing, relevant base of literature and articulate how the plan of work is so informed.  It is expected that implementation of the plan of work will impact participating NSF awards, as well as other relevant parts of the institution(s).  The proposal should, therefore, address how the goals of the overall project are compatible with the goals of the individual integrated components, as well as how the project is both compatible with and beneficial for thehost institution(s).  The proposal should include a management/governance plan that describes who is responsible for what, a timeline, and an evaluation plan.  All proposals must clearly demonstrate that the submitting team has the capability to manage the project, organize the work, and meet deadlines. 

Each proposed implementation project in Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) should have an evaluation plan to assess progress and success in meeting project goals and objectives.  An independent, external project-level evaluation is to be conducted to inform the institution and others of the progress and findings of the grant activities, especially those that address the project’s synergistic activity (i.e., the value added by I³).  I³ projects are expected to have baseline data, establish measurable targets, and collect evidence to determine annual progress and long-term outcomes.  If applicable, it is highly desirable to establish a systematic plan to track student participants beyond their involvement in the project.  Project-level evaluation should be designed to offer feedback for strengthening implementation over the course of the project, provide credible evidence to justify continued investment in the project, and report results (and describe models/paradigms) of institutional and/or disciplinary changes associated with the investment strategy. 

Each I³ project, as part of a national effort, is expected to cooperate in the monitoring and independent portfolio evaluation efforts conducted by NSF’s contracted evaluators.  While each project will propose its own types of specific qualitative and quantitative measures, some later standardization of performance monitoring is anticipated so that NSF can conduct a summative/impact evaluation. The I³ portfolio (summative/impact) evaluation will be designed to determine how effectively I³ is contributing to the knowledge base, building a community of innovators, strengthening/advancing the higher education STEM infrastructure, and promoting collaborations that advance the goals of I³.

Proposals for research must address one or more I³ goals and discuss the current state of knowledge relevant to the project.  This brief literature review should clearly inform the proposed research.  The project description should identify the methods the project will use and explain why those methods are appropriate to the questions that the proposal addresses.  Methodologies must be matched with strategic research questions, and the logic among research question, method, analysis, inference, and evidence should be well articulated. 

The results of prior, relevant NSF investment(s), especially projects on which the proposed institutional integration is based, are to be described and supported by data,along with a discussion of both successes and failures.  The proposal should also clearly indicate how the intended work differs from, builds on, or is otherwise informed by prior efforts.

RESULTS FROM PRIOR NSF-SUPPORT

If any Principal or co-Principal Investigator has received funding from NSF in the last five years, information on the prior award is required IF RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK (see Grant Proposal Guide NSF 07-140, June 2007). The results of any prior NSF investment(s) should be clearly demonstrated and supported by data. A discussion of both successes and lessons learned from previous support MUST be included. The proposal should also clearly indicate how the intended work differs from, builds on or is otherwise informed by prior efforts.

While all proposals must address prior NSF-support, results of prior support from the MSP program must be a major component of a Phase II proposal. Please review this section in the description for Phase II MSP Projects.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Provide a Biographical Sketch for the Principal Investigator, co-Principal Investigators and Project Evaluator. Individual biographical sketches must not exceed two pages and may include a list of up to five publications most closely related to the proposed endeavor.

CURRENT AND PENDING SUPPORT

Provide a Statement of Current and Pending Support for the Principal Investigator and all co-Principal Investigators.

SPECIAL INFORMATION AND SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTATION

For MSP-Start projects, RETA projects and Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³), no Appendices are permitted; however, letters of commitment/collaboration may be submitted in FastLane’s Supplementary Documents Section.

For Targeted, Institute and Phase II Partnerships, Supplementary Documents should be uploaded in FastLane as a separate PDF file NOT TO EXCEED 20 PAGES. Include in this documentation:

(1.) Baseline Data. TEACHERS: For Targeted and Phase II Partnership proposals, provide data describing the numbers of teachers of mathematics and/or the sciences in the core partner school district(s). The data should relate to quantity, diversity and quality (e.g., baccalaureate/masters degrees, teaching out of the certification field, retention, and professional development hours) of teachers in the system(s). Also provide teacher preparation and/or professional development data that describe the current capacity of the core partner institution(s) of higher education to serve the teacher professional continuum needs of the school district core partner(s). Data should describe the numbers of mathematics and/or science teachers produced annually (through traditional pre-service and/or alternative routes), placement and support of new teachers in their initial teaching appointments, numbers of teachers impacted by professional development activities provided by the core partner institution(s) of higher education, etc. For Institute Partnership proposals, provide a plan by which baseline data will be collected after teacher participants have been selected. Baseline teacher data are to document teacher qualifications and enable an assessment of teachers’ growth as intellectual leaders and accomplished practitioners and of their effects on their school environment. Include a description of any instruments/metrics to be used. STUDENTS: For Targeted, Institute and Phase II Partnership proposals, provide baseline student data that will enable the Partnership to demonstrate the effects of participation by its teachers on the achievement of their students or on other student outcomes (e.g., tracking student academic performance or choice of post-secondary studies in mathematics, the sciences, engineering or technology). Student achievement data are to be the most recent in comparison to state and/or national averages and, unless precluded by local or state law, disaggregation by race-ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender and disability is expected. The data should identify the test and indicate the grade levels in which system-wide science and/or mathematics assessments were administered. They should include achievement scores, the percentage of students tested against grade-level enrollment and the appropriate categories for reporting test results (quartiles, mean percentiles, proficiency levels, or above or below cut scores). Data must also include course enrollment and completion rates and, where appropriate, college matriculation rates.

(2.) Annual Benchmarks and Outcome Goals. Provide a summary of quantitative benchmarks that are linked to strategies/activities and summative goals of the project. While some benchmarks and goals may be qualitative in nature, most indicators of student achievement, of the teacher workforce and of higher education involvement should be quantitative and should describe expected project progress relative to baseline data provided elsewhere in the Project Description and Appendices. The project’s proposed Evaluation Plan should directly relate to the benchmarks and goals. Institute Partnerships should, in addition, include a plan by which the project will document the career paths of Institute graduates.

(3.) Partnership Leadership Team. In a table, identify members of the Partnership Leadership Team. For each, briefly describe their specific roles and responsibilities and indicate the time committed.

(4.) Disciplinary Partners. In a table, identify the scientists, mathematicians and/or engineers engaged in the work of the project. For each, briefly describe their specific roles and responsibilities and indicate the time committed.

(5.) Commitment to Institutional Change. Provide evidence of commitment to institutional change in the form of one or more letters signed by senior administrator(s) (equivalent to a Dean or higher) in the higher education core partner(s). In addition, provide at least one letter signed by senior administrator(s) in the school district(s) core partner.

For Institute Partnerships, letters from K-12 core partners will be expected to show commitment to (a) an alignment of the teacher leadership effort with ongoing educational improvements and reform in mathematics and science, (b) increased responsibilities for the emerging teacher leaders in their home organizations, as a result of successful completion of the Institute, and (c) administrative support, time, resources and recognition/rewards commensurate with this increased responsibility. K-12 core partners are required to grant sufficient nonclassroom time to Institute participants to carry out their responsibilities as master teachers and intellectual leaders, and to provide assurance of this commitment. If – in addition to core partners in higher education and K-12 – there are other core partners, provide letters signed by senior officials that describe plans to redirect resources and to develop/revise policies and practices critical to the work of the Partnership and necessary to ensure the sustainability of project work.

(6.) Other Letters of Substantive Commitment. As space will allow, provide letters of substantive commitment from other project partners.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:   Cost sharing is not required under this solicitation.

Other Budgetary Limitations:  

Awards for Institute Partnerships will be made for durations of up to five years and for average annual budgets of up to $1M. Teacher stipends of at least $1000 per week for structured Institute participation are to be included, where local district policies are not in conflict with such stipends.

C. Due Dates

• Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

       February 17, 2009

        Institute Partnerships, MSP-Start Partnerships, Phase II Partnerships, RETA Projects

       February 24, 2009

        Innovation through Institutional Integration

       August 20, 2009

        Targeted Partnerships

       August 25, 2009

        Innovation through Institutional Integration

       April 07, 2010

        Innovation through Institutional Integration

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

• For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:

  Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

  Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. The Grants.gov's Grant Community User Guide is a comprehensive reference document that provides technical information about Grants.gov. Proposers can download the User Guide as a Microsoft Word document or as a PDF document. The Grants.gov User Guide is available at: http://www.grants.gov/CustomerSupport. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide provides additional technical guidance regarding preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures   

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program where they will be reviewed if they meet NSF proposal preparation requirements. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal.

A. NSF Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board (NSB)-approved merit review criteria: intellectual merit and the broader impacts of the proposed effort. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two NSB-approved merit review criteria are listed below. The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which the reviewer is qualified to make judgements..

NSF staff also will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:

Additional Review Criteria:

In elaboration of the general NSF review criteria, reviewers will also be asked to review MSP proposals by considering the following questions.

• How well does the proposal address  MSP Key Features?

• Is the proposed work strategic and innovative, and informed by the current research literature on teaching and learning?

• Is the evaluation plan comprehensive in nature, including both formative and summative components, conducted by independent, objective, experts external to the project?

• Does the proposal present the research questions to be studied and show how the design of the project will allow claims that the activities conducted by the Partnership contribute to the measured outcomes?

In addition to the two NSF criteria for Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts, special review criteria for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) implementation projects are:

• The extent to which the proposed project addresses the interrelated goals for institutional integration and adds value to existing NSF awards.

• The extent to which there is a demonstrated track record of success for the existing NSF awards on which the proposed institutional integration is based.

• The degree of innovation in the proposed project as evidenced by a depth and quality of creative, coherent, and strategic actions that extend beyond commonplace approaches to normal institutional operations.

• The extent to which the proposed project addresses programming, policies, and practices commensurate with the sustained institutional change needed to seed and nurture appropriate, synergistic relationships among discrete NSF awards.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later.  The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.

A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer.  In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. Notification of the Award

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award letter; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1); * or Research Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require more frequent project reports). Within 90 days after expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report.

Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for that PI. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports.  Such reports provide information on activities and findings, project participants (individual and organizational) publications; and, other specific products and contributions.  PIs will not be required to re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the electronic system.  Submission of the report via FastLane constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete.

VIII. Agency Contacts

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

• Kathleen B. Bergin, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, telephone: (703) 292-5171, email: kbergin@nsf.gov

• James E. Hamos, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, telephone: (703) 292-4687, email: jhamos@nsf.gov

• Daniel P. Maki, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, telephone: (703) 292-4620, email: dmaki@nsf.gov

• Joan T. Prival, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, telephone: (703) 292-4635, email: jprival@nsf.gov

• Elizabeth VanderPutten, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, telephone: (703) 292-5147, email: evanderp@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

• FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov.

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

• Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov.

IX. Other Information

The NSF Website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this Website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, National Science Foundation Update is a free e-mail subscription service designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Regional Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail when new publications are issued that match their identified interests. Users can subscribe to this service by clicking the "Get NSF Updates by Email" link on the NSF web site.

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 40,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records, " 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Division of Administrative Services
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230