NSF 09-513: Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program

Program Solicitation

Program Solicitation NSF 09-513

Replaces Document(s):
NSF 08-532

 

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

 

Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (optional) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

February 10, 2009

Noyce Scholarship and NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship Proposals

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

February 24, 2009

Innovation through Institutional Integration

March 10, 2009

Noyce Scholarship and NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship Proposals

August 25, 2009

Innovation through Institutional Integration

Revision Notes

A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), NSF 09-1, was issued on October 1, 2008 and is effective for proposals submitted on or after January 5, 2009.  Please be advised that the guidelines contained in NSF 09-1 apply to proposals submitted in response to this funding opportunity.  Proposers who opt to submit prior to January 5^th, 2009, must also follow the guidelines contained in NSF 09-1. 

One of the most significant changes to the PAPPG is implementation of the mentoring provisions of the America COMPETES Act.  Each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include, as a separate section within the 15-page project description, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals.  Proposals that do not include a separate section on mentoring activities within the Project Description will be returned without review (see the PAPP Guide Part I: Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II.C.2.d for further information). 

1. A new track for NSF Teaching Fellowships and NSF Master Teaching Fellowships (TF/MTF) has been added.  This track supports STEM professionals who are enrolled in a master's degree program leading to teacher certification or licensure and mathematics and science teachers preparing to become Master Teachers.  As required by the America COMPETES Act, an institution submitting a proposal under this track must provide matching funds, from non-Federal sources, equal to 50 percent of the amount of the grant request. For purposes of this solicitation, and in accordance with Federal requirements, the terms "matching" and "cost sharing" are synonymous. Proposals submitted to the TF/MTF track, excluding TF/MTF Planning Grant proposals, must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system.

2. Budget limitations have been revised, increasing the award size for Phase I and Phase II Noyce Scholarship awards.

3. A track for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) is included.   I³ challenges faculty, administrators, and others in institutions to think strategically about the creative integration of NSF-funded awards and is itself an integrative, cross-cutting effort within the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR).  For Fiscal Year 2009, proposals are being solicited in nine EHR programs that advance I³ goals: 

   • Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST)
   • Research on Gender in Science and Engineering (GSE)
   • Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP)
   • Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST)
   • Alliances for Broadening Participation in STEM:  Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP)
   • Math and Science Partnership (MSP)
   • Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program
   • Research in Disabilities Education (RDE)
   • Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP)

All proposals submitted to I³ through these programs have a common due date and will be reviewed in competition with one another.  Eligibility is limited to institutions of higher education (including two- and four-year colleges). 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.  Given the focus on institutional integration, an institution may submit only one proposal to the I³ competition for each deadline. 

Summary Of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title: 

Synopsis of Program:

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

• Joan T. Prival, Lead Program Director, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4635, email: jprival@nsf.gov

• Deborah E. Allen, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4653, email: deallen@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:    16 to  24   awards under the Noyce Scholarship Program. Pending the availability of funding, it is anticipated that there will be 10-12 Noyce Phase I awards, 2-4 Noyce Phase II awards, 2-4 Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship Awards, and 2-4 Teaching Fellowship Planning Grants. Up to 12 continuing awards will be made in the Innovation through Institutional Integration activity for the February 24, 2009, competition, pending availability of funds. Up to 12 continuing I³ awards will also be made in Fiscal Year 2010 for the August 25, 2009, competition, pending availability of funds.

Anticipated Funding Amount:   $14,000,000  for new Noyce awards in FY 2009 pending availability of funds. $10,000,000 over 5 years for Innovation through Institutional Integration projects across multiple EHR programs for each of Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010, pending availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Organization Limit: 

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Universities and two- or four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, or consortia of such institutions, or US nonprofit entities that have established consortia among such institutions of higher education may submit Noyce proposals.

  Eligibility for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) is limited to institutions of higher education (including two- and four-year colleges) accredited in, or 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.

PI Limit: 

For Noyce Scholarship Proposals, the PI, or at least one Co-PI, must be a faculty member in a mathematics, science, or engineering department.

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, on its own or as a member of a consortium, may submit no more than one Noyce proposal per track.  There are two Noyce tracks in this solicitation:  the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Track and the NSF Teaching Fellows/Master Teaching Fellows Track.  This limitation is independent of the limitation for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) proposals indicated below.

For Fiscal Year 2009, 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 the I³ competition for each deadline.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 

None Specified

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Submission of Letters of Intent is optional. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

• 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/pubs/policydocs/grantsgovguide607.pdf)

B. Budgetary Information

• Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is Specialized. For purposes of this solicitation, and in accordance with Federal requirements, the terms "matching" and "cost sharing" are synonymous. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

• Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:  

  No indirect costs are allowed for Noyce Phase I, Noyce Phase II Scholarship and Stipend projects, and NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship proposals.  Indirect costs are only allowed for Phase II Monitoring and Evaluation projects and NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship Planning Grants.

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

C. Due Dates

• Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (optional) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

  February 10, 2009

  Noyce Scholarship and NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship Proposals

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

  February 24, 2009

  Innovation through Institutional Integration

  March 10, 2009

  Noyce Scholarship and NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship Proposals

  August 25, 2009

  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:   Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

I. Introduction

II. Program Description

III. Award Information

IV. Eligibility Information

Organization Limit: 

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Universities and two- or four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, or consortia of such institutions, or US nonprofit entities that have established consortia among such institutions of higher education may submit Noyce proposals.

  Eligibility for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) is limited to institutions of higher education (including two- and four-year colleges) accredited in, or 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. 

PI Limit: 

For Noyce Scholarship Proposals, the PI, or at least one Co-PI, must be a faculty member in a mathematics, science, or engineering department.

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, on its own or as a member of a consortium, may submit no more than one Noyce proposal per track.  There are two Noyce tracks in this solicitation:  the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Track and the NSF Teaching Fellows/Master Teaching Fellows Track.  This limitation is independent of the limitation for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) proposals indicated below.

For Fiscal Year 2009, 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 the I³ competition for each deadline.     

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 

None Specified

Additional Eligibility Info:

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Letters of Intent(optional):

Letters of Intent for Noyce Scholarship Proposals:

A Letter of Intent is optional, but encouraged, before submitting a full Noyce Scholarship or NSF Teaching Fellow/Master Teaching Fellow proposal. The Letter of Intent is not a preliminary proposal and no feedback will be provided. It is intended to enhance the efficiency of the review process. Letters of Intent should be electronically submitted through FastLane by February 10, 2009. The Letter of Intent should indicate the category of proposal (Phase I, Phase II S&S, Phase II M&E, Teaching Fellow/Master Teaching Fellow (TF/MTF), or TF/MTF Planning grant). It should include a brief synopsis of the project, indicating the grade level (elementary, middle, or high school) and discipline focus of the project. Additional institutions, organizations, and school districts should be listed in the Participating Organizations section of the FastLane Letter of Intent. 

Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions:

When submitting a Letter of Intent through FastLane in response to this Program Solicitation please note the conditions outlined below:

• Sponsored Projects Office (SPO) Submission is not required when submitting Letters of Intent
• A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 25 Other Participating Organizations are allowed
• Category of Proposal is required when submitting Letters of Intent
• Submission of multiple Letters of Intent is allowed

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/pubs/policydocs/grantsgovguide607.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.

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.3 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

The following instructions supplement the guidelines in the GPG and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide.

Proposals submitted to the NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship (TF/MTF) track, excluding TF/MTF Planning Grant proposals, must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system.

Cover Sheet
While filling out the cover sheet in FastLane, it is important to choose the Robert Noyce Scholarship program solicitation number indicated on the cover of this document.  Select either Noyce Scholarship Project or I³ from the list of programs in the "NSF Unit Consideration" section. This choice must be specified in order to have access to the DUE Project Data Form, which is required for Noyce proposals. If using Grants.gov, the program solicitation number will be prepopulated by Grants.gov on the NSF Grant Application Cover Page.

Human Subjects:

• Mark HUMAN SUBJECTS box as pending, approved, or exempted (with exemption subsection indicated).  This box should not be left blank.

• HUMAN SUBJECTS box should be marked as pending if an IRB is either (1) reviewing the project plan and has not yet determined a ruling of “approved” or “exempt”, or (2) the project plan has not yet been submitted to an IRB for review.

Projects involving research with human subjects, or the reporting of information gathered from human subjects, must ensure that subjects are protected in conformance with the relevant federal policy known as the Common Rule (Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR 690). All projects involving human subjects must either (1) have approval from the organization's Institutional Review Board (IRB) before issuance of an NSF award or, (2) must affirm that the IRB or an appropriate knowledgeable authority previously designated by the organization (not the Principal Investigator) has declared the research exempt from IRB review, in accordance with the applicable subsection, as established in section 101(b) of the Common Rule.  If the box for "Human Subjects" is checked on the Cover Sheet along with either (1) the IRB approval date, or (2) the exemption subsection from the Common Rule identified, then no additional certification is required.  In the event the proposal is recommended for funding and IRB review is pending, certification of IRB approval or exemption should be submitted to NSF in electronic form as soon as it is available.  Delays in obtaining IRB certification may result in NSF being unable to make an award.  For more information regarding the protection of human subjects, consult: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/human.jsp

Project Summary

For Noyce proposals, the one-page Project Summary should indicate the specific category of proposal (Phase I, Phase II S&S, Phase II M&E, or TF/MTF) and name all institutions, including school districts and non-profit organizations, that are involved in the proposal. Proposers are reminded that the Project Summary must explicitly address, in separately labeled statements, both NSB-approved merit review criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. Proposals failing to explicitly address Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts in the Project Summary will be returned without review. 

Project Description

Noyce Phase I Proposals should include and clearly identify the following elements in the Project Description section:

• Results from Prior NSF Support: Address prior support relevant to the proposed project;
• A description of the proposed scholarship or stipend program, including:  the number and size of scholarships, internships, and stipends; the rationale for the number and size of scholarships and/or stipends; and projected cumulative number of new teachers to be produced over the duration of the program, including a comparison to number of teachers currently produced by the proposing institution(s);
• A description of the teacher preparation program in which the Noyce scholarship or stipend recipients will be enrolled, including a description of the academic requirements and other components of the program and description of any modifications or course revisions that will be developed and implemented.  The proposal must include evidence of exemplary teacher preparation efforts to ensure that scholarship and stipend recipients become successful science and mathematics teachers in elementary and secondary schools.  For proposals involving more than one institution, the proposal should describe the teacher preparation program at each participating institution and the role and responsibility of each institution in the project;
• A description of recruitment activities and specific marketing strategies designed to attract a large and diverse pool of applicants;
• A description of the selection process that will ensure the most qualified applicants are selected based on academic merit, with consideration given to financial need and increasing participation of minorities, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented genders relative to specific teaching areas;
• A description of the management and administrative structure and the capability for administering the scholarship or stipend program;
• Evidence of an infrastructure that is supportive of new teachers. Include a description of the activities and support mechanisms that will be available to recipients to ensure they are able and willing to fulfill their commitment to teaching;
• Evidence of collaboration between STEM faculty and education faculty;
• Evidence of functioning partnerships between institutions of higher education and school districts;
• A description of plans to monitor and enforce compliance with the required teaching commitment;
• Evidence that the institution is committed to making the program a central institutional focus; and
• An evaluation plan that will provide information on the effectiveness of the project in attracting, preparing, and retaining STEM individuals in teaching careers and should include methodologies for measuring the effectiveness of the Noyce scholarship/stipend recipients as teachers. The evaluation plan should include a mechanism for tracking the scholarship/stipend recipients during the period in which they are fulfilling their service obligation and a plan for collecting demographic data and statistics on scholarship and stipend recipients.  The proposal should identify an evaluator with expertise to conduct an objective evaluation.

Noyce Phase II Scholarship and Stipend (S&S) Proposals should include the following elements in the Project Description section:

• Results from Prior NSF Support: Describe the outcomes of prior support under the previous Robert Noyce Scholarship grant to include the number of students supported through scholarships and/or stipends with major field of study and level of teaching, and the number who have begun teaching in a high-need school district. The success of the project in increasing the number of STEM majors or STEM professionals who enter the teaching workforce should be a particular focus of this discussion. The proposal should explain how the results of the prior work and evaluation findings have informed the proposed work.
• A description of the proposed scholarship or stipend program, including the number and size of scholarships and stipends, the rationale for the number and size of scholarships and/or stipends, and projected cumulative number of new teachers to be produced over the duration of the program, including a comparison to number of teachers currently produced by the proposing institution(s);
• A description of the teacher preparation program in which the Noyce scholarship or stipend recipients will be enrolled, including a description of the academic requirements and other components of the program. The proposal must include evidence of exemplary teacher preparation efforts to ensure that scholarship and stipend recipients become successful science and mathematics teachers in elementary and secondary schools;
• A description of recruitment activities designed to attract a large and diverse pool of applicants;
• A description of the selection process that will ensure the most qualified applicants are selected based on academic merit, with consideration given to financial need and increasing participation of minorities, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented genders relative to specific teaching areas;
• A description of the management and administrative structure and capability for administering the scholarship or stipend program;
• Evidence of an infrastructure that is supportive of new teachers. Include a description of the activities and support mechanisms that will be available to recipients to ensure they are able and willing to fulfill their commitment to teaching;
• Evidence of collaboration between STEM faculty and education faculty;
• Evidence of functioning partnerships between institutions of higher education and school districts;
• A description of plans to monitor and enforce compliance with the required teaching commitment;
• Discussion of how the proposed project builds on and expands activities established under the prior support, beyond simply continuing the work;
• Discussion of plans to sustain activities and impact of the project beyond Phase II support;
• Evidence that the institution has made the program a central institutional focus;
• Evidence of the impact of the Noyce Scholarship project on STEM departments;
• Details of a plan to expand and extend the evaluation activities initiated under the original award. Evaluation studies should include longitudinal studies to measure the impact of the project on students supported under the first award in terms of their performance as teachers, their completion of the teaching requirement, and their retention in the teaching profession. In addition, plans for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the project on new cohorts should be included. The evaluation plan should address recruitment, preparation, and retention of the Noyce Scholars and should lead to results that will inform the community of what works and why. This study should go beyond the required tracking of recipients to include indicators of the effectiveness of the program in attracting STEM majors into teaching, the impact of the program on departments and the institution, and the effectiveness of the Noyce Scholars as measured by their performance in the classroom and their impact on student learning. The proposal should include plans to disseminate the findings of this study through peer reviewed publications and national conferences.

Noyce Phase II Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Proposals should include the following elements in the Project Description section:

•  Results from Prior NSF Support: Describe the outcomes of prior support under the previous Robert Noyce Scholarship grant, including the number of students supported through scholarships and/or stipends with major field of study and level of teaching, and the number who have begun teaching in a high need school district. The success of the project in increasing the number of STEM majors or STEM professionals who enter the teaching workforce should be a particular focus of this discussion. The proposal should provide results of the evaluation activities.
• Details of a plan to expand and extend the evaluation activities initiated under the original award. Evaluation studies should include longitudinal studies to measure the impact of the project on students supported under the first award in terms of their performance as teachers, their completion of the teaching requirement, and their retention in the teaching profession. The evaluation plan should address recruitment, preparation, and retention of the Noyce Scholars and should lead to results that will inform the community of what works and why. This study should go beyond the required tracking of recipients to include indicators of the effectiveness of the program in attracting STEM majors into teaching, the impact of the program on departments and the institution, and the effectiveness of the Noyce Scholars as measured by their performance in the classroom and their impact on student learning. The proposal should include plans to disseminate the findings of this study through peer reviewed publications and national conferences.

NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship proposals should include the following elements in the Project Description section:

• Results from Prior NSF Support: Address prior support relevant to the proposed project;
• A description of the proposed program, including:  the number and size of fellowships; the rationale for the number and size of fellowships; the number and amount of salary supplements that will be provided; and, for proposals supporting NSF Teaching Fellows, the projected cumulative number of new teachers to be produced over the duration of the program, including a comparison to number of teachers currently produced by the proposing institution(s);
• A description of the Master's degree program in which the Teaching Fellows will be enrolled, including a description of the academic requirements and other components of the program and description of any modifications or course revisions that will be developed and implemented.  The proposal must include evidence of exemplary teacher preparation efforts to ensure that the Teaching Fellows become successful science and mathematics teachers in elementary and secondary schools.  For proposals involving more than one institution, the proposal should describe the teacher preparation program at each participating institution and the role and responsibility of each institution in the project; and/or
• A description of the professional development program offered to the Master Teaching Fellows that will enable them to become Master Teachers.
• A description of recruitment activities and specific marketing strategies designed to attract a large and diverse pool of applicants;
• A description of the selection process that will ensure the most qualified applicants are selected, including a description of the content knowledge assessment that will be used;
• A description of the management and administrative structure and the capability for administering all aspects of the fellowship program, including the disbursement  of salary supplements;
• In the case of Teaching Fellows: Evidence of an infrastructure that is supportive of new teachers. Include a description of the activities and support mechanisms that will be available to recipients to ensure they are able and willing to fulfill their commitment to teaching;
• In the case of Master Teaching Fellows:  Evidence of an infrastructure that will support and facilitate their work as master teachers;
• Evidence of collaboration between STEM faculty and education faculty;
• Evidence of functioning partnerships between institutions of higher education, school districts, and non-profit organizations;
• A description of cost sharing, including source and amount;
• A description of plans to monitor and enforce compliance with the required teaching commitment;
• Evidence that the institution is committed to making the program a central institutional focus;
• Plans for sustaining the activities beyond the NSF funding period;
• An evaluation plan that will provide information, as applicable,  on the effectiveness of the project in attracting, preparing, and retaining STEM professionals  in teaching careers and the effectiveness of the project in developing Master Teachers.  The evaluation plan should include methodologies for measuring the effectiveness of the Fellows as teachers or as Master Teachers. The evaluation plan should include a mechanism for tracking the Fellows during the period in which they are fulfilling their service obligation and a plan for collecting demographic data and statistics on the Fellows.  The proposal should identify an independent evaluator with expertise to conduct an objective evaluation.

NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship Planning proposals should include the following elements in the Project Description section:

• Results from Prior NSF Support: Address prior support relevant to the proposed project;
• A plan for establishing the partnership, identifying matching funds, and designing the programs that would be offered to NSF Teaching Fellows and Master Teaching Fellows under a future NSF TF/MTF proposal;
• Plans for evaluating progress and accomplishments under the planning period.

Additional Requirements for Proposals

The PI and Co-PI leadership must include at least one faculty member from a STEM discipline. Letters of support from the Dean of Arts & Sciences, Dean of Education, department chairs, and school district Superintendent(s) or comparable administrators should be submitted as evidence of institutional support for the proposal. School district letters submitted in support of a TF/MTF proposal should indicate the district will support the award of salary supplements and will not lower the base salary of Fellows receiving the supplements.   Letters should be uploaded into the Supplementary Documentation section in FastLane. For Grants.gov users, supplementary documents should be attached in Field 11 of the R&R Other Project Information Form.

A Project Data Form must be submitted as part of all proposals. The information on this form is used to direct proposals to appropriate reviewers and to determine the characteristics of projects supported by the Division of Undergraduate Education. In FastLane, this form will show up in the list of forms for your proposal only after you have (1) selected the "Noyce" program solicitation number on the Cover Sheet and (2) saved the Cover Sheet. Grants.gov users should refer to Section VI.6. of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide for specific instructions on how to submit the DUE Project Data Form.

Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) Proposals

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 the host 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. 

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:   For purposes of this solicitation, and in accordance with Federal requirements, the terms "matching" and "cost sharing" are synonymous.

The proposed cost sharing must be shown on Line M on the proposal budget. Documentation of the availability of cost sharing must be included in the proposal. Only items which would be allowable under the applicable cost principles, if charged to the project, may be included as the awardee's contribution to cost sharing. Contributions may be made from any non-Federal source, including non-Federal grants or contracts, and may be cash or in-kind (see OMB Circular A-110, Section 23). It should be noted that contributions counted as cost-sharing toward projects of another Federal agency may not be counted towards meeting the specific cost-sharing requirements of the NSF award. All cost-sharing amounts are subject to audit. Failure to provide the level of cost-sharing reflected in the approved award budget may result in termination of the NSF award, disallowance of award costs and/or refund of award funds to NSF.

Cost sharing in the amount of 50% of the total request is required only for proposals submitted under the NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship track, excluding Planning Grants.  For example, a proposal requesting $1.5 million in NSF funds should include cost sharing in the amount of $750,000.

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:  

No indirect costs are allowed for Noyce Phase I, Noyce Phase II Scholarship and Stipend projects, and NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship proposals.  Indirect costs are only allowed for Phase II Monitoring and Evaluation projects and NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship Planning Grants.

Other Budgetary Limitations:  

Noyce Phase I, Noyce Phase II S&S, and NSF TF/MTF proposals: Up to 20% of the proposed budget may be allocated for administrative and program operational costs, including monitoring and evaluation, as detailed under Program Support in  Section II "Program Description" above.

Budget Preparation Instructions:  Scholarships, internships, and stipends should be indicated in Section F.1 Participant Support - "Stipends" of the FastLane budget (or Section E.2. on the Grants.gov R&R Budget Form).  Enter the number of participants supported in each budget year. Proposals submitted to the TF/MTF track, excluding TF/MTF Planning Grant proposals, must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system.

C. Due Dates

• Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (optional) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

  February 10, 2009

  Noyce Scholarship and NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship Proposals

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

  February 24, 2009

  Innovation through Institutional Integration

  March 10, 2009

  Noyce Scholarship and NSF Teaching Fellowship/Master Teaching Fellowship Proposals

  August 25, 2009

  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:

Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

Additional Review Criteria:

In considering the above criteria, reviewers will be asked to comment on the following:

Noyce Phase I Proposals:

• Capacity and ability of the institution to effectively conduct the program
• Number and quality of students that will be served by the program
• Justification for number of students served and amount of stipend and scholarship support
• Ability of the program to recruit STEM majors who would not otherwise pursue a career in teaching
• Quality and feasibility of recruitment and marketing strategies
• Quality of the preservice educational program
• Extent to which STEM faculty and education faculty are collaborating in developing and implementing the program
• Quality of the preservice student-support and new teacher-support infrastructure
• Extent to which the proposed strategies reflect effective practices based on research
• Degree to which the proposed programming will enable scholarship or stipend recipients to become successful mathematics and science teachers
• Feasibility and completeness of an evaluation plan that will measure the effectiveness of the proposed strategies
• Institutional support for the program and the extent to which the institution is committed to making the program a central organizational focus

Noyce Phase II S&S Proposals:

• Evidence that the previously funded project was consistent with the criteria listed above
• Evidence of institution and school district support for continuing the project
• Demonstrated success of the previously funded project in terms of recruitment of STEM majors and/or STEM professionals into K12 teaching and preparation to become effective teachers
• Evidence that the project has recruited STEM majors who would not otherwise pursue a career in teaching
• Evidence that a high quality new teacher support structure is in place
• Plans for advancing the work beyond the original project
• Plans for conducting a longitudinal evaluation study of previous cohorts of Noyce Scholarship and/or stipend recipients as well as evaluation and monitoring of new cohorts to address teacher and student outcome
• Evaluation plans that build on and strengthen the previous evaluation effort
• Plans for disseminating results of the evaluation studies
• Plans for sustainability

Noyce Phase II M&E Proposals:

• Evidence that the previously funded project was consistent with the criteria listed above for Phase I proposals
• Plans for conducting a longitudinal evaluation study of previous cohorts of Noyce Scholarship and/or stipend recipients focusing on their effectiveness as teachers, their completion of the teaching requirement, and their retention in the teaching profession.
• Evaluation plans that build on and strengthen the previous evaluation effort
• Plans for disseminating results of the evaluation studies.

TF/MTF Proposals

• Capacity and ability of the institution to effectively conduct the program
• Number and quality of Fellows that will be served by the program
• Justification for number of Fellows served and amount of stipend and salary supplements
• For NSF Teaching Fellows: Ability of the program to recruit individuals who would not otherwise pursue a career in teaching and to recruit underrepresented groups
• Quality and feasibility of recruitment and marketing strategies
• Quality of the Master's degree program leading to teacher certification for NSF Teaching Fellows
• For NSF Teaching Fellows: Quality of the preservice student support and new teacher support infrastructure
• For NSF Master teaching Fellows: Quality of the professional development that will be provided
• Extent to which the proposed strategies reflect effective practices based on research
• Extent to which STEM faculty and education faculty are collaborating in developing and implementing a program with curriculum based on the specialized pedagogy needed to enable teachers to effectively teach math and science and to assume leadership roles in their schools.
• Degree to which the proposed programming will enable the participants to become successful mathematics and science teachers or Master Teachers.
• Feasibility and completeness of an objective evaluation plan that will measure the effectiveness of the proposed strategies
• Institutional support for the program and the extent to which the institution is committed to making the program a central organizational focus
• Evidence of cost sharing commitments
• Plans for sustainability beyond the period of NSF funding
TF/MTF Planning Grants      
• Clarity of plan to establish a partnership for developing full TF/MTF proposal
• Clear statement of objectives to be completed during the planning period
• Evaluation plans that will measure stated objectives

Innovation Through Institutional Integration (I³) Proposals

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 pubs@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.

All projects will be required to participate in program  monitoring and evaluation activities conducted by a third party as part of the Directorate for Education and Resources' program evaluation efforts that will require annual data collection. 

VIII. Agency Contacts

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

• Joan T. Prival, Lead Program Director, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4635, email: jprival@nsf.gov

• Deborah E. Allen, Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4653, email: deallen@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, MyNSF (formerly the Custom News Service) is an information-delivery system 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 or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. MyNSF also is available on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/.

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.

Related Programs:

Math and Science Partnership Program

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