Title: Advanced Technological Education (ATE)
Date: 1/15/03
Replaced: NSF 02-035


Advanced Technological Education (ATE)

Program Solicitation
NSF 03-523
Replaces Document 02-035

[NSF Logo]   National Science Foundation
             Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education
             Division of Undergraduate Education
             Directorate for Education and Human Resources



Preliminary Proposal Due Date(s) (optional):

     April 23, 2003
          (Optional except for LSMD and LSTP)

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

     October 15, 2003

REVISIONS AND UPDATES

This is a clarification of NSF's intention in providing a waiver of
matching requirements for "... Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian Serving
Institutions that do not offer STEM degrees beyond the bachelors level"
[see Section V.B. of this solicitation]. Chapter II.C.2.a. of the Grant
Proposal Guide (GPG) states: "Should the project be performed at a place
other than where the award is to be made, that should be identified in the
block entitled, "Name of Performing Organization." If the Performing
Organization under this solicitation is not the Awardee Organization, and
if the Performing Organization does "not offer STEM degrees beyond the
bachelors level," then the waiver of matching requirements would apply to
such Performing Organizations for award activities performed at those same
Performing Organizations.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

General Information

Program Title:

     Advanced Technological Education (ATE)

Synopsis of Program:

     This program promotes improvement in technological education at
     the undergraduate and secondary school levels by supporting
     curriculum development; the preparation and professional
     development of college faculty and secondary school teachers;
     internships and field experiences for faculty, teachers, and
     students; and other activities. With an emphasis on two-year
     colleges, the program focuses on the education of technicians for
     the high-technology fields that drive our nation's economy. The
     program also promotes articulation between programs at two-year
     colleges and four-year colleges and universities--in particular,
     articulation between two-year and four-year programs for
     prospective teachers (with a focus on activities and disciplines
     that have a strong technological foundation) and between two-year
     and four-year programs in science, technology, engineering, and
     mathematics (also with a focus on disciplines that have a strong
     technological foundation).  Additionally, the program invites
     proposals focusing on research relating to technician education.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

   * Elizabeth J. Teles, Lead Program Director (MATH), Directorate for
     Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835
     N, telephone: (703) 292-4643, fax: (703) 292-9015, email:
     ejteles@nsf.gov

   * V. Celeste Carter, Program Director (BIO), Directorate for Education &
     Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 n,
     telephone: (703) 292-4656, fax: (703) 292-9015, email:
     vccarter@nsf.gov

   * Gerhard L. Salinger, Lead Program Director, Directorate for Education
     & Human Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, & Informal
     Education, 885 S, telephone: (703) 292-5116, fax: (703) 292-9044,
     email: gsalinge@nsf.gov

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

   * 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources

Eligibility Information

   * Organization Limit: None Specified.
   * PI Eligibility Limit: An individual may serve as the Principal
     Investigator (PI) on no more than one proposal submitted for each
     deadline date, but may serve as a co-PI on multiple proposals.
   * Limit on Number of Proposals: None Specified.

Award Information

   * Anticipated Type of Award: Standard or Continuing Grant
   * Estimated Number of Awards: 70
   * Anticipated Funding Amount: $40 million in FY2004, subject to the
     availability of funds

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

   * Preliminary Proposals: Submission of Preliminary Proposals is
     optional. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further
     information.
   * Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: This solicitation contains
     information that supplements the standard Grant Proposal Guide (GPG)
     proposal preparation guidelines. Please see the full text of this
     solicitation for further information.

B. Budgetary Information

   * Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is Specialized. Please see the
     full text of this solicitation for further information.
   * Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: In planning grants for ATE centers,
     indirect costs may not exceed 10 percent of modified total direct
     costs.
   * Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please
     see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

   * Preliminary Proposals (optional) :
          April 23, 2003
               (Optional except for LSMD and LSTP)
   * Full Proposal Deadline Date(s) (due by 5 p.m proposer's local time):
          October 15, 2003

Proposal Review Information

   * 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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

     Summary of Program Requirements

  I. Introduction

 II. Program Description

III. Eligibility Information

 IV. Award Information

  V. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
       A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
       B. Budgetary Information
       C. Due Dates
       D. FastLane Requirements

 VI. Proposal Review Information
       A. NSF Proposal Review Process
       B. Review Protocol and Associated Customer Service Standard

VII. Award Administration Information
       A. Notification of the Award
       B. Award Conditions
       C. Reporting Requirements

VIII.Contacts for Additional Information

 IX. Other Programs of Interest

I. INTRODUCTION

The Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program promotes improvement in
the education of science and engineering technicians at the undergraduate
and the secondary school levels. Proposals to the program may aim to affect
either specialized technology courses or core science, mathematics, and
technology courses that serve as prerequisites or corequisites for
specialized technology courses. The curricular focus and the activities of
all projects should demonstrably contribute to the ATE program's central
goals: producing more science and engineering technicians to meet workforce
demands, and improving the technical skills and the general science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) preparation of these
technicians and the educators who prepare them.

The ATE program focuses on two-year colleges and expects two-year colleges
to have a leadership role in all projects. Effective technological
education programs should involve partnerships between two-year colleges,
four-year colleges and universities, secondary schools, business, industry,
and government, and should respond to industry's need for well-prepared
workers having adaptable skills.

Fields of technology supported by the ATE program include, but are not
limited to, agricultural technology, biotechnology, chemical technology,
civil and construction technology, computer and information technology,
electronics, environmental technology, geographic information systems,
manufacturing and engineering technology, marine technology, multimedia
technology, telecommunications, and transportation technology. The ATE
program generally does not support projects that focus primarily on
students who will become health or medical technicians.

The nation's economic prosperity hinges on the fields served by the ATE
program. Many of these fields also play a vital role in national security.
For example, information technology specialists and telecommunications
technicians confront threats to computer, information, and Internet
security and contribute to intelligence gathering; environmental
technicians measure air, water, and ground quality for adulteration by
chemical and biological agents; biotechnicians, agricultural technicians,
and chemical technicians monitor and thwart biological and chemical threats
and threats to the nation's food supply; and process technicians develop,
enforce, and improve the security of manufacturing processes, including
safeguarding materials and data.

Activities undertaken in ATE projects may include:

   * the adaptation of exemplary educational materials, courses, and
     curricula in new educational settings;
   * the preparation and professional development of college faculty and
     secondary school teachers;
   * the design and implementation of new educational materials, courses,
     laboratories, and curricula;
   * internships and field experiences for students, faculty, and
     teachers;
   * the evaluation and broad dissemination of exemplary educational
     materials and pedagogical strategies that have been developed through
     ATE awards; and
   * research on effective practices in technician education.

Activities may have either a national or a regional focus, but not a purely
local one. All projects must be guided by a coherent vision of
technological education--a vision that recognizes the needs of the modern
workplace, of students as lifelong learners, and for articulation of
educational programs at different levels. The program especially encourages
efforts that give prospective technicians insight into real-world work
environments; serve the needs of not only first-time students but also
returning students and workers wishing to acquire new skills; implement the
national science, mathematics, technology, and industry standards in
education; use information technology and other educational technologies to
improve learning and teaching; and link educators and educational programs
in two-year colleges, four-year colleges and universities, secondary
schools, business and industry.

The ATE program specifically welcomes proposals for developing
comprehensive articulation agreements between two-year and four-year
institutions either to strengthen the technological knowledge and skills
and the science and mathematics preparation of future K-12 teachers or to
facilitate the transition of students from STEM associate's degree programs
to related bachelor's degree programs, especially those having a strong
technological basis.

The ATE program also invites proposals for National Centers of Excellence
in all technological fields supported by the program, as well as Regional
Centers in information technology and manufacturing education, two areas of
technology that have been identified for special emphasis.

This is the 10th year of the ATE program.  About 500 ATE projects have been
supported to date and provide a base upon which future ATE projects should
build.  Information about these projects can be found on the ATE web site
(http://www.nsf.gov/ATE).  In addition, an extensive evaluation of the ATE
program has been performed by the Evaluation Center at Western Michigan
University and includes several research studies on best practices in
technician education.  Proposers should visit http://ate.wmich.edu for
information on evaluation and best practices and build proposals on this
evaluation and research base.  The ATE program invites proposals focusing
on research relating to the education of technicians, how career choices
are made, and the impact of programs on business and industry.

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

A. PROGRAM TRACKS

The ATE program supports proposals in three major tracks: ATE Projects, ATE
Centers, and Articulation Partnerships. Although these tracks are expected
to encompass most of the activities supported by the program, people who
have ideas for other activities are invited to contact an ATE program
officer to explore whether those ideas might be appropriate for funding by
the program. Proposals in all tracks should demonstrate a thorough
awareness of previous relevant ATE grants as well as research in the field.
Whenever feasible, projects should utilize and innovatively build from
successful educational materials, courses, curricula, strategies, and
methods that have been developed through other ATE grants, as well as other
exemplary resources (including those not supported by NSF) that can be
adapted to technological education. Proposers should contact the Principal
Investigators (PIs) of previously funded projects to explore the
possibilities for adapting materials, evaluating materials, receiving
guidance, or collaborating in other ways.  The program will also support a
few research projects focusing on technician education.

  1. ATE Projects

     While ATE Centers are comprehensive in scope, ATE Projects focus more
     narrowly on one or more of the six activities described below.
     Multifaceted projects that cut across these activity categories are
     especially encouraged. For all activities, proposers should thoroughly
     explore possibilities for adapting and implementing proven materials
     and methods. Grants for ATE Projects range from $25,000 to $300,000
     per year and have a duration of up to three years, except as noted
     below for Large Scale Materials Development (LSMD).

     Program Improvement: Proposed activities should enhance a curriculum
     in multiple ways, producing a coherent sequence of classes,
     laboratories, and work-based educational experiences that revitalize
     the learning environment, course content, and experience of
     instruction for students preparing to be science and engineering
     technicians. The resulting program should constitute a model that will
     be disseminated broadly. Components of the program improvement process
     might include, for example, integrating industry standards and
     workplace competencies into the curriculum; adapting educational
     materials or courses developed elsewhere; adding rigorous STEM content
     to courses; adding work-based experiences; modernizing equipment;
     incorporating appropriate pedagogical approaches; providing
     professional development for educators; developing articulation
     between programs at different levels (secondary school, two-year
     college, and four-year college or university); and improving the
     recruitment and retention of students. The improved program leads
     students to an appropriate degree, certification, or occupational
     competency embedded in an associate degree program and provides
     business and industry with a larger pool of skilled technicians.
     Innovative programs that provide faster tracks to demonstrated
     competencies are encouraged--for example, programs that restructure
     courses and curricula into modules, tracks, or blocks to provide
     students a step-wise approach to a two-year degree, with multiple exit
     and reentry points defined by certifications or competency
     assessments. Outcomes should include an increased number of students
     entering the high performance technical workplace with enhanced
     competencies.

     Professional Development for Educators: The ATE program supports
     projects that provide current secondary school teachers and college
     faculty with opportunities for continued professional growth in areas
     that directly impact advanced technological education. These projects
     should be designed to enhance the educators' disciplinary
     capabilities, teaching skills (including skills in using information
     technology and other educational technologies to enhance instruction),
     vitality, and understanding of current technologies and practices.
     Activities typically include workshops, intensive seminars, industrial
     internships, or a combination of these. Such activities typically last
     from a few days to several weeks and are usually conducted in the
     summer, with follow-up activities during the academic year. To effect
     long-term change, these projects should normally span at least two
     academic years. The program particularly encourages activities that
     involve secondary school teachers and two-year college faculty working
     together.  Evaluation should demonstrate changes in practice of
     participating faculty and teachers.

     Curriculum and Educational Materials Development (for National
     Dissemination): Proposed activities should affect the learning
     environment, course content, and experience of instruction for
     students preparing to be science and engineering technicians and for
     their teachers.  Projects result in new print, electronic, and
     multimedia materials, including simulations, scenarios, web searches,
     etc. as well as laboratory experiments and manuals.  Such products are
     expected be developed with industry input and evaluation.  They are
     field tested in diverse locations and widely disseminated through
     commercial publishers and electronic networks as well as by
     conferences, workshops, journal articles and other means.  The
     proposal should describe the evidence to be accepted that the goals of
     the materials have been achieved and also the means to provide the
     evidence.  Educational materials and curricula that offer students
     innovative high-quality learning experiences through distance
     education are encouraged.  A project's focus may range from the
     revision or adaptation of existing educational materials to the
     creation of entirely new ones; from the a few modules at a single
     educational level to a comprehensive curriculum for multiple years;
     from a single subject to integration of several disciplines.

     ATE also anticipates funding a few Large Scale Materials Development
     (LSMD) projects that could exceed the financial limits noted
     above.  These projects may target course sequences or multiple courses
     that are integrated and taken concurrently, or major changes in
     teaching strategy.  They should be research-based, build upon
     cognitive science, leverage existing resources, and respond to
     documented national needs.  The materials may be pilot tested locally,
     but field tests should be done in diverse locations.  The evaluation
     must include measures of increased student learning of content and
     processes and have input from business and industry.  A realistic
     national dissemination strategy must be described.  The size of the
     budget and the duration of the work plan should be in proportion to
     the importance and scope of the proposed work.  Preliminary proposals
     should clearly identify that they are for LSMD and full
     proposals should be submitted to this category only if a preliminary
     proposals was submitted to LSMD.

     Technical Experiences: Well-designed technical experiences typically
     allow educators or students to get hands-on exposure to applications
     of science, technology, engineering and mathematics; interact closely
     with working scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and technicians;
     engage in the actual practice and thought processes of science,
     engineering, and technology (formulating problems and questions,
     designing appropriate models, troubleshooting, and using technological
     tools); and become acquainted with the environments of two-year
     colleges and other academic institutions, businesses and industries,
     government laboratories, and other research organizations. Projects
     ideally should provide a balance of classroom, laboratory, and field
     experiences and should foster collaboration among peers.
     Student-faculty teams are particularly encouraged to participate in
     technical experiences and to translate those experiences into
     meaningful classroom activities that introduce other students to the
     role of technicians in the workplace.

     Laboratory Development: The ATE program supports the development of
     innovative methods for using laboratory and field exercises, and
     technical experiences, to improve students' understanding of basic
     principles and for using modern instrumentation, new technologies, or
     applications of instruments that extend their instructional
     capability. The program also encourages the establishment of
     equipment-sharing arrangements through consortia or ATE centers. For
     some proposals, instrumentation-only requests might be appropriate;
     however, innovative laboratory development usually entails the
     concurrent adaptation or development of educational materials,
     courses, or programs. Proposals whose primary rationale is financial
     need or the replacement of equipment at the same level of capability
     are not appropriate.

     Research: The ATE program is committed to applied research that
     assesses the effectiveness and impact of funded efforts in enhancing
     technician education.  The purpose of the applied research projects is
     to ensure that the ATE program itself and the projects are grounded in
     research.  The feedback helps all ATE projects benefit from this
     knowledge, strengthens the portfolio and identifies new programmatic
     directions.  Research studies are separate efforts that grow out of a
     group of completed projects or from questions that arise through
     analysis of an issue of priority to ATE.  Proposals should be based on
     a research design that incorporates appropriate and proven
     methodologies and strategies to (1) identify the research questions,
     (2) implement the collection and analysis of data, (3) interpret the
     resulting measures and findings generated by the study, and (4)
     address the impact on business and industry.  These studies should
     address the unique challenges and opportunities posed by the broad
     variety of technician education programs, the diversity of two-year
     colleges that offer them, and the diversity of students in them.
     Researchers with interests in adult learning for technical careers are
     especially encouraged.  People who have experience and expertise in
     designing and implementing such studies should be in the project
     leadership.  The results of the proposed research should provide
     convincing evidence of factors (including departmental/institutional)
     that lead to programs and/or instructional materials that prepare
     technicians for the high performance workplace.  Outcomes should
     inform the education and business and industry community, including
     faculty, administrators, business and industry partners, policymakers,
     and parents, enabling them to guide better the future development of
     learning experiences for technician education.  They should also
     foster the retention, and academic success of diverse students in
     technician programs.

  2. ATE Centers

     ATE centers are comprehensive national or regional resources that
     provide models and leadership for other projects and act as
     clearinghouses for educational materials and methods. They are
     typically cooperative efforts involving two-year colleges,
     four-year colleges and universities, secondary schools, business,
     industry, and government. Proposals for centers must clearly
     articulate a vision of technological education for the future and
     must describe a workable plan for achieving that vision during
     the period of NSF funding and for sustaining it afterwards.
     Proposals for ATE centers should be based on a three-pronged
     alliance of support from (1) NSF, (2) the proposing educational
     institution or consortium, and (3) businesses, industries, and/or
     other government agencies or laboratories. Depending on the
     quality of proposals received and the availability of funds, the
     ATE program anticipates making awards of the following sizes and
     durations:

        o National Centers of Excellence: up to two new awards for up to $5
          million (each) spread over four years, with the possibility of
          renewal (at a lower level of funding) for an additional three
          years.

        o Regional Centers for manufacturing or information technology
          education: up to four new awards for up to $3 million (each)
          spread over four years, with the possibility of renewal (at a
          lower level of funding) for an additional three
          years.

        o Resource Centers: up to four new awards for up to $1.5 million
          (each) spread over four years.

     (Within the total proposed budget for a center, experience
     suggests that the annual budgets should increase during the first
     three years as the center's activities increase.)

     In addition, the ATE program anticipates making up to 10 new
     planning grants to fund the development of well-formulated plans
     for future national centers in any technological field supported
     by ATE or regional centers in manufacturing or information
     technology education. Planning grants are made for up to $70,000
     and have a duration of one to two years. A proposal for a
     planning grant should clearly describe the activities that will
     take place during the grant period. It should also provide
     details about the workforce demands that the prospective center
     will address, the organizations that will be (or will likely be)
     partners in the center, the core faculty members or
     administrators who will manage the center, and the criteria that
     will be used to judge the proposer's readiness to form an ATE
     center at the end of the planning period. The proposal should
     also outline plans for identifying and enlisting faculty and
     representatives from business or industry to provide intellectual
     leadership for the center's various activities. Planning-grant
     proposals need not present elaborate plans for evaluation and
     dissemination.

     National Centers of Excellence:  National Centers of Excellence
     may vary in size and disciplinary coverage but must have a
     national impact. In particular, a National Center should bring
     together a broad array of institutions that offer programs in the
     area of technology on which the center focuses. National Centers
     typically engage in the full range of activities associated with
     ATE Projects (see Section A.1 above). They are expected to
     develop high-quality courses and curricula for the
     high-performance workplace; to provide professional development
     for educators to support the utilization of these resources; and
     to disseminate their products through commercial publishers,
     journals, conferences, workshops, electronic networks, and other
     means. Centers must also have well-developed strategies for
     recruiting, retaining, and placing students preparing to be
     science and engineering technicians. Proposals should present a
     detailed plan for advancing the ATE program's mission and
     emphases. In particular, the proposals should lay out significant
     plans for:

        o broad outreach to institutions offering programs in the area of
          technology on which the Center will focus;

        o professional development of secondary school teachers and college
          faculty (especially two-year college faculty);

        o strong collaboration of educational institutions with business,
          industry, and government (especially with regard to identifying
          needed technical skills, planning curricula, and establishing
          internships and evaluative activities for students and
          faculty);

        o utilization, creation or enhancement of skill
          standards;

        o curriculum development (including the improvement of core STEM
          courses, as well as specialized courses in various
          technologies);

        o articulation of courses and programs between secondary schools,
          two-year colleges, and four-year colleges and
          universities;

        o recruitment, retention, and placement of students, especially
          students from groups underrepresented in STEM fields;

        o institutionalization of Center activities;

        o dissemination of educational materials and practices; and


        o evaluation of products and student learning and impact of Center
          activities on business and industry.

     Regional Centers for Manufacturing or Information Technology
     Education:  Manufacturing and information technology (IT) are
     central to maintaining the economic competitiveness of the United
     States in the 21st century. ATE Regional Centers for
     manufacturing or IT education are designed to impact the nation's
     economy and workplace through the comprehensive reform of
     technician education in these critical areas.

     These centers are expected to focus mainly on reforming academic
     programs, departments, and systems to produce highly qualified
     workers who meet industry's needs within a particular geographic
     region and who also meet national industry and academic skill
     standards appropriate for the region's employers.

     A Regional Center must involve multiple academic institutions.
     Each center should lead systemic reform in the manufacturing or
     IT programs at all or most of the academic institutions in a
     region, engaging a majority of the region's college faculty and
     secondary school teachers in the relevant discipline(s). Each
     center's activities must be designed to have a clear, measurable
     impact on the region's workforce needs in manufacturing or IT;
     and the center must have mechanisms for measuring the number and
     quality of students who are recruited, achieve competencies in
     relevant areas, receive industry certifications (when relevant),
     participate in internships, graduate, and find appropriate
     employment. Center leaders should also be prepared to contribute
     to longitudinal studies that examine students' performance in the
     workplace and measure employers' satisfaction with graduates.

     In conjunction with business and industry partners, each center
     should undertake activities that address:

        o academic program reform, such as using industry and skill
          standards and other input from industry in program development,
          adapting and implementing exemplary educational materials and
          practices developed elsewhere, improving laboratories or
          equipment, and using distance-learning technologies to connect
          workplaces and two-year colleges;

        o professional development for college faculty (including adjunct
          faculty) and secondary school teachers, such as cooperative
          activities between faculty and teachers in technology departments
          and those in mathematics and science departments, exchanges of
          faculty and teachers among educational institutions, internships
          in industry, and opportunities to obtain certifications in
          emerging technologies; and

        o capacity building (recruitment, retention, and placement of
          students), such as mentoring and tutoring prospective and current
          students, collaborating with secondary schools to ensure that
          students are prepared for technical programs, ensuring
          articulation between two-year technology programs and four-year
          programs, providing internships for students in industry or
          national laboratories, and utilizing parents, teachers,
          counselors, and industry representatives to recruit students into
          careers in manufacturing and IT.

     Resource Centers:  A Resource Center should constitute a highly
     visible source of materials, ideas, contacts, and mentoring in a
     particular field of technological education, and the proposers
     should have already made substantial, high-quality contributions
     in an area of technological education. These centers (1) serve as
     clearinghouses for, and broadly distribute, the exemplary
     educational materials, curricula, and pedagogical practices
     designed by previously funded ATE centers and projects and (2)
     provide support and mentoring for institutions that wish to start
     or improve educational programs in a particular field of
     technology. Generally, only ATE national or regional centers and
     exemplary ATE projects that have already completed their original
     grants are well-positioned to become Resource Centers.

  3. Articulation Partnerships

     This track promotes initiatives at two-year colleges, in
     partnership with four-year colleges and universities, to expand
     two important educational pathways. One type of articulation
     partnership aims to impact two-year college programs for
     prospective K-12 teachers (with a focus on activities and
     disciplines that have a strong technological foundation), and the
     other type of partnership targets two-year college programs for
     students who continue their education in four-year STEM degree
     programs, especially programs that have a strong technological
     basis. With leadership based at two-year colleges, these
     articulation partnerships should enhance the ability of two-year
     college students to transfer to four-year programs and should
     improve the quality of these students' preparation in STEM.
     Grants for large-scale Articulation Partnerships range from
     $50,000 to $100,000 per year and have a duration of three years,
     except as noted below for Large Scale Teacher Preparation (LSTP)
     projects.

     Teacher Preparation: Because many of the nation's teachers begin
     their professional education and complete a significant portion
     of their required science and mathematics course work in two-year
     colleges, the resources of these institutions must be utilized
     fully if the national need for a teaching force well-prepared in
     science, mathematics, and technology is to be met. (See the
     report Investing in Tomorrow's Teachers: The Integral Role of
     Two-Year Colleges in the Science and Mathematics Preparation of
     Prospective Teachers [NSF 99-49].) Moreover, the nation's
     technological future depends not only on highly qualified
     technicians, engineers, and scientists, but also on K-12 teachers
     who are technologically literate and have been exposed to the
     range of advanced technologies used in the modern workplace and
     supported by the ATE program.

     Projects must involve both two-year and four-year institutions
     and should aim to increase the number, quality, and diversity of
     prospective K-12 science, mathematics, or technology teachers in
     preprofessional or paraprofessional programs at two-year
     colleges; improve the prospective teachers' technological
     literacy; improve their understanding of advanced technologies
     used in the modern workplace; and strengthen their preparation in
     science and mathematics (since science and mathematics provide
     critical underpinnings for advanced technological education).
     Paraprofessional programs should provide pathways to a four-year
     degree.  The ATE program particularly encourages efforts that
     target prospective middle school and high school technology
     teachers.

     Projects should focus on activities such as recruiting students,
     improving systems for advising and mentoring, developing
     high-quality STEM educational materials, engaging pre-service and
     in-service teachers in joint activities, and connecting two-year
     college programs for prospective teachers with other
     organizations (such as businesses, laboratories, professional
     societies, and museums) that have a stake in STEM education. Each
     project's evaluation plan must include metrics for the
     recruitment of prospective K-12 teachers, the transfer of those
     students into four-year teacher preparation programs, and the
     improvement in those students' preparation in science,
     mathematics, and technology. Project leaders should also be
     prepared to contribute to longitudinal studies that track
     students beyond the grant period, in order to measure the number
     who graduate with teaching credentials, find positions in K-12
     schools, and demonstrate successful performance in the classroom.

     ATE also anticipates funding a few Large Scale Teacher
     Preparation projects that could exceed the limits above.  These
     could focus on state systems of two- and four-year colleges or
     multiple two- and four-year institutions working together on
     teacher preparation activities as described above.  The size and
     duration should be in proportion to the importance of the
     proposed work.  Preliminary proposals should clearly identify
     that they are LSTP, and full proposals should only be submitted
     in this category if a preliminary proposal was submitted to
     LSTP.

     Articulation Between Associate's Degree and Bachelor's Degree
     Programs:  The ATE program supports partnerships in which
     two-year colleges work with four-year colleges or universities to
     develop, implement, and evaluate model programs that enable
     students to make a successful transition from a STEM associate's
     degree program to a related bachelor's degree program. Like other
     ATE projects, these partnerships should also involve industry.
     The partnerships should aim to produce highly skilled technicians
     with bachelor's degrees and/or highly qualified bachelor's degree
     graduates in science, mathematics, or engineering who are
     well-prepared for employment in the technical workplace. Projects
     that involve curricula central to technician education are
     strongly encouraged. Such projects might involve, for example,
     joint activities between students in programs with different
     educational requirements (e.g., engineering and engineering
     technology); "reverse transfer" arrangements in which students in
     a four-year degree program take technical courses in a two-year
     college; or students' transition from a two-year degree program
     to a four-year program from which graduates enter the workforce
     as technicians or technologists. Project activities must
     constitute an innovative approach to articulation that can be
     disseminated and implemented broadly. For example, activities
     might focus on designing and implementing "bridge" programs,
     creating or reengineering curricula to respond to emerging
     workforce needs, attracting students into programs, or bringing
     together two-year and four-year college faculty in the design and
     implementation of new courses and programs. Proposals should
     explain the rationale for the particular partnership that is
     proposed, describe existing barriers to effective articulation,
     detail a plan for overcoming those barriers, demonstrate strong
     institutional commitments to the new curricular arrangements that
     would come out of the project, estimate the project's impact on
     the number of students (or workers) going on to complete STEM
     bachelor's degrees, and describe the evidence that will be used
     to evaluate the project's impact on student transfers, degree
     production, workforce enrichment, and student learning.

B. INFORMATION ABOUT PREVIOUS AWARDS

   * ATE's Web site provides an online guide to abstracts for and other
     information about previous ATE awards
     (http://www.nsf.gov/ate).
   * DUE's Web-based Project Information Resource System
     (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/pirs_prs_web/search/) contains award abstracts
     and a variety of additional information provided directly by Principal
     Investigators.
   * EHR's Web site contains a variety of information about the different
     divisions and programs (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov).
   * NSF's Web site provides an Awards Search feature
     (http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a6/A6Start.htm) that allows customized
     searches of NSF's award database.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

The categories of proposers identified in the Grant Proposal Guide (
Chapter 1, Section C) are eligible to submit proposals under this program
solicitation. Two-year colleges and other associate degree-granting
institutions are especially encouraged to submit proposals, and all
proposals are expected to include one or more two-year colleges in a
leadership role. A proposal from an informal consortium of institutions
should be submitted by one member of the consortium; a proposal from a
formal consortium--such as a community college system or school
district--should be submitted by the consortium. An individual may serve as
the Principal Investigator (PI) on no more than one proposal submitted for
each deadline date, but may serve as a co-PI on multiple proposals. In
accordance with NSF's cost-sharing policy (see NSF Important Notice No.
124, "Implementation of the New NSF Cost Sharing Policy"), proposers are
reminded that NSF-required cost-sharing is considered an eligibility rather
than a review criterion. Proposals that do not show the required
cost-sharing are ineligible for consideration and may be returned without
review. Specific cost-sharing requirements for proposals submitted in
response to this solicitation are identified in Section V.B ("Budgetary
Information") below. The proposed cost-sharing must be shown on Line M of
the proposal budget.

IV. AWARD INFORMATION

NSF anticipates that approximately $40 million will be available for this
program in FY2004. The program expects to make approximately 75 awards,
depending on the quality of proposals received. Grants may be awarded in a
wide variety of sizes and durations, as specified in Section II ("Program
Description") above. The estimated program budget, number of awards, and
average award size and duration are subject to the availability of funds.

V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Preliminary Proposals (optional):
The submission of a preliminary proposal is recommended but not
required, except for LSMD and LSTP. Preliminary proposals are read by
experienced reviewers and NSF staff. On the basis of these readers'
judgment of the likelihood that a full proposal based on the preliminary
proposal could be successful in the formal peer review process, NSF will
either "encourage" or "discourage" the submission of a formal proposal.
This is an advisory opinion only; a proposer may submit a formal proposal
even if NSF recommends against it after review of the preliminary proposal.
The ATE program anticipates being able to return reviews of preliminary
proposals approximately ten weeks after the deadline date. These reviews
will provide comments to help proposers strengthen their ideas and project
plans before submitting a formal proposal. Instructions for preparing
preliminary proposals are included below along with the instructions for
preparing a "Full Proposal." As indicated below (under "Full Proposal"), a
preliminary proposal should contain the following sections/forms:

   * Information About Principal Investigators and Co-Principal
     Investigators
   * Cover Sheet
   * Project Data Form
   * Project Summary (see description under Full Proposal
     Instructions)
   * Table of Contents (automatically generated by FastLane)
   * Project Description (no longer than 12 pages, double-spaced, 12 pt
     type)
   * Biographical Sketches
   * Budget (including Budget Justification and Cost-Sharing)

A preliminary proposal should not include the following sections/forms:

   * Current and Pending Support
   * Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources
   * Special Information and Supplementary Documentation
   * Appendices

Full Proposal Instructions:

Proposals submitted in response to this program announcement/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:
http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be
obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (301) 947-2722
or by e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov.

FastLane (http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov), NSF's system for conducting
business over the Internet, must be used to prepare and submit both
preliminary and formal proposals. Paper proposals will not be accepted.
Proposers should carefully follow the detailed instructions
(http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm) on the FastLane Web site. PIs
who have not used FastLane before are reminded to make sure that their
institution is a registered FastLane institution (see
http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a0/about/registration.htm) and to contact the
institution's Sponsored Research Office (which might also be known as the
Office of Grants Administration, Office of Sponsored Projects, Office of
Research, etc.) to be added to the NSF PI database. (All co-PIs listed in
the proposal must also be in the NSF PI database.) PIs who intend to use
subawards in their proposal (see GPG, Chapter II, Section C.6.f.(v)) are
reminded that the subawardee organization(s) must also have an NSF
Institution ID Number (or be a registered FastLane institution) before
FastLane can be used to prepare the subaward budget(s). New FastLane users
should acquaint themselves with the system as early as possible--well
before the proposal deadline. Helpful advice about the content of effective
educational proposals can be found in A Guide for Proposal Writing (NSF
98-91), which was prepared by staff in the Division of Undergraduate
Education to assist proposers to the division's programs. Proposals should
contain the following sections/forms:

   * Information About Principal Investigators and Co-Principal
     Investigators (see GPG, Chapter II, Section C)
   * Cover Sheet (see GPG, Chapter II, Section C): In FastLane, select the
     correct "Program Announcement/Solicitation No."; this number can be
     found at the beginning of this document. If the proposal is for a
     planning grant for an ATE center, begin the project title with the
     words "Planning Grant for...."
   * Project Data Form: The information on this form is used to direct the
     proposal to appropriate reviewers and to determine the characteristics
     of NSF-supported projects. Take special care to identify the proper
     track for your proposal in Item 1 on the form. For any audience
     code(s) marked in Item F (e.g., women, minorities, persons with
     disabilities), include in the Project Description a substantive
     discussion of the strategies that the project will employ to affect
     the audience(s). Note: In FastLane, the Project Data Form will show up
     in the list of forms for your proposal only after you have (1)
     selected the correct Program Announcement/Solicitation No. on the
     Cover Sheet and (2) saved the Cover Sheet.
   * Project Summary (see GPG, Chapter II, Section C.1): Provide a one-page
     summary, not to exceed 500 words.  Note that the abstract MUST address
     both NSB-approved merit review criteria in separate statements.
     Effective October 1, 2002, NSF will return without review proposals
     that do not address both merit review criteria in separate
     statements.  The project summary should be single-spaced, in a
     standard font with a size no smaller than 12 points. It should clearly
     indicate, in the first few sentences, the disciplinary focus (or foci)
     of the proposed project, the kinds of activities to be undertaken
     (e.g., educational materials development, adaptation and
     implementation, professional development for educators), and the
     primary audience to be affected by those activities (e.g., two-year
     college students, high school students, two-year college faculty
     members). This information is used to assign the proposal to a panel
     for review.
   * Table of Contents (see GPG, Chapter II, Section C.2): This page will
     be automatically generated by FastLane.
   * Project Description (including Results from Prior NSF Support) (see
     GPG, Chapter II, Section C.3): Pages in this section must have margins
     no less than 2.5 cm at the top, bottom, and on each side. Every page
     must be numbered in the bottom center. The section must be
     double-spaced (i.e., no more than 3 lines of text per 2.5 cm of
     vertical space), in a standard font (Times New Roman, Times, Arial, or
     Helvetica are recommended) with a size no smaller than 12 points. Page
     limits are as follows:
        o For preliminary proposals, the Project Description must not
          exceed 12 pages (double-spaced).
        o For formal proposals for planning grants for ATE centers, the
          Project Description must not exceed 15
          pages (double-spaced).
        o For all other formal proposals, the Project Description must not
          exceed 30 pages (double-spaced).
     Tables, graphs, illustrations, etc., are included in these page
     limits. The Project Description should explain the project's
     motivating rationale, goals, objectives, deliverables, and activities;
     the timetable; the management plan; the roles and responsibilities of
     the PI, co-PI(s), and other senior personnel; the prospects for
     sustainability after the period of NSF funding; the evaluation plan;
     the dissemination plan; and results from prior NSF support. The
     subsection on Results from Prior NSF Support should only cover awards
     pertaining to education; describe research awards only if they have a
     direct bearing on the new proposal. If the proposed project is based
     on previously funded work, the proposal must thoroughly describe the
     results of the prior project, demonstrate that the project achieved
     its objectives, and provide evidence of the quality and effectiveness
     of the project's deliverables. (Appendices may also be used, subject
     to the constraints indicated below, to illustrate prior work.) For
     information about effective approaches to evaluation, see the
     User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation: Science, Mathematics,
     Engineering, and Technology Education (NSF 02-057); the User-Friendly
     Handbook for Mixed Method Evaluations (NSF 97-153); and the Online
     Evaluation Resource Library (http://oerl.sri.com/) of NSF's
     Directorate for Education and Human Resources.
   * References Cited (see GPG, Chapter II, Section C.4): Any literature
     cited should be specifically related to the proposed project, and the
     Project Description should make clear how each reference has played a
     role in the motivation for or design of the project. Any relevant
     literature on research in teaching and learning should be
     cited.
   * Biographical Sketches (see GPG, Chapter II, Section C.5)
   * Budget (see GPG, Chapter II, Section C.6): A Budget Justification of
     up to three pages must accompany the budget forms and provide details
     about budget line items. Proposals that involve subawards should
     include a Budget Justification of up to three pages for each
     subawardee organization. However, in preliminary proposals, budget
     forms for subawards are not required.
   * Current and Pending Support (see GPG, Chapter II, Section C.7): In
     preliminary proposals, this section should be omitted.
   * Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources (see GPG, Chapter II,
     Section C.8): In preliminary proposals, this section should be
     omitted.
   * Special Information and Supplementary Documentation (see GPG, Chapter
     II, Section C.9) and Appendices: In preliminary proposals, these
     sections should not be included. In formal proposals, these sections
     are optional. Their combined length must not exceed 30 pages. They
     might include, for example, letters of commitment, a sample of
     previously developed (relevant) educational materials, a published
     review of such materials, or a draft of a proposed unit or module.
     Letters of commitment should document collaborative arrangements or
     pledge resources of significance to the proposal. Letters which merely
     endorse the proposal or offer nonspecific support for project
     activities should not be included.  FastLane's Supplementary Documents
     function should be used to submit these sections as one or more PDF
     files. Note that any letters must be obtained in or converted to
     electronic format; if necessary, electronically scan paper documents
     and convert them to PDF. (Proposers should not send videotapes,
     computer diskettes, CD-ROMs, slides, books, etc., as appendices or
     supplements to a proposal.)

Because most proposals submitted in response to this solicitation will be
reviewed by panel review instead of mail review, there is no need for
proposers to submit a list of suggested reviewers unless an NSF program
officer specifically requests it. Certain special types of proposals
described in the GPG--i.e., Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER)
proposals (see GPG, Chapter II, Section C.11.a), Equipment Proposals (see
GPG, Chapter II, Section C.11.c), and Accomplishment-Based Renewal (ABR)
proposals (see GPG, Chapter V, Section B.2)--are not appropriate for the
ATE program. Collaborative Proposals (see GPG, Chapter II, Section C.11.b)
should in most cases be submitted as a single proposal. Under unusual
circumstances, Collaborative Proposals involving the simultaneous
submission of proposals from different organizations will be accepted in
the formal proposal cycle. The lead proposer must obtain advance written
approval from an ATE program officer to submit such a proposal, and the
collaborating organizations must exactly follow the instructions for
electronic submission specified in GPG, Chapter II, Section C.11.b.(ii).
The project titles of the related proposals must be identical and must
begin with the words "Collaborative Project," and the combined budgets of
the related proposals should conform to the typical award sizes specified
in this solicitation. These simultaneous Collaborative Proposals will be
treated as a single proposal (with a single Project Summary, Project
Description, and References Cited) during the review process.

Proposers are reminded to identify the program announcement/solicitation
number (03-523) in the program announcement/solicitation block on the
proposal Cover Sheet. Compliance with this requirement is critical to
determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit
this information may delay processing.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Funds requested for equipment or instrumentation (as defined below) must be
matched by non-Federal funds, equipment, or instrumentation with a value
equal to the funds requested from NSF. For the match on equipment and
instrumentation, an institution may obligate its matching funds or receive
gifts of equipment or instrumentation to be counted toward matching at any
time following the program deadline date for which the awarded proposal was
submitted, but before the grant expiration date specified in the official
award letter. This normally provides a lengthy period during which the
institution must fulfill the requirement to match NSF
equipment/instrumentation funds. For all other categories of cost-sharing
(e.g., personnel time), an institution may obligate its matching funds at
any time following the award effective date but before the grant expiration
date specified in the official award letter.

Consistent with the objectives of Executive Orders 12876, 12900, and 13021,
NSF will waive matching requirements for Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and
Universities that do not offer STEM degrees beyond the masters level, and
for Postsecondary Minority Institutions and Alaska Native or Native
Hawaiian Serving Institutions that do not offer STEM degrees beyond the
bachelors level. Please note this waiver in your budget justification, if
you are eligible to take advantage of this waiver. (For more information on
this exemption, please see the DUE web site at
http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/due/programs/general/msi.asp)

Except for the special conditions of the above Executive Orders, requests
for instrumentation must be matched 1:1 by funds or instrumentation from
non-Federal sources equal to the funds requested for instrumentation from
NSF.  To qualify as matching, these resouces must be used specifically for
the instrumentation (or its equivalent) listed in the budget approved for
the project.

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.

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

In planning grants for ATE centers, indirect costs may not exceed 10
percent of modified total direct costs.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Funds requested for equipment or instrumentation (as defined below) must
not exceed $100,000 or 10 percent of the total NSF funding request,
whichever is larger. NSF funds may not be used to support expenditures that
would normally be made in the absence of an award, such as costs for
routine teaching activities (including curriculum development) and
laboratory upgrades.

Instrumentation: In the ATE program, items such as computers,
computer-related hardware, software, laboratory or field instrumentation,
and scientific or industrial machinery, with an acquisition cost between
$500 and $5,000 and an expected service life of more than one year, are
defined as "instrumentation." Such items may be requested for use in
projects, as may "equipment," which is defined as property that has an
acquisition cost of $5,000 or more and an expected service life of more
than one year (see GPG, Chapter II, Section C.6.c). Any equipment or
instrumentation requested must be necessary and appropriate for achieving
the project's objectives, and the Project Description must justify this
need and appropriateness. Charges (including material and labor costs) for
the construction of equipment or instrumentation that would have advantages
(for the project) over commercially available items are allowed. In the
Budget Justification, any equipment or instrumentation requested must be
listed by name and probable brand, model (or version), and price (which
should reflect educational discounts when available); such selections may
be changed after an award if more appropriate models have become available.
Neither NSF project funds nor institutional matching funds may be used for:

   * equipment or instrumentation that is not mainly for use in the
     project;
   * replacement equipment or instrumentation that does not significantly
     improve instructional capability;
   * teaching aids (e.g., films, slides, projectors, "drill and practice"
     software);
   * vehicles, laboratory furnishings, or general utility items such as
     office equipment (including word-processing equipment), benches,
     tables, desks, chairs, storage cases, and routine supplies;
   * maintenance equipment and maintenance or service contracts;
   * the modification or construction of laboratories or other
     buildings;
   * the installation of equipment or instrumentation (as distinct from the
     on-site assembly of multicomponent instruments--which is an allowable
     charge); or
   * a flat percentage inflation allowance.

Any equipment or instrumentation requested as part of a proposal should be
included in Line D ("Equipment") of the proposal budget.

Workshops: In proposals that involve professional development workshops, it
is generally expected that the home institutions of the participants will
bear the cost of travel to and from the workshop. However, some travel
costs may be included in project budgets. Costs for subsistence (lodging
and meals) during the workshop may be included. In addition, funds may be
requested for a stipend of up to $100 per workshop day for participants;
requests for such stipends must be specific to the target audience and must
be fully justified--for example, to assure participation by faculty with
few professional development opportunities or from resource-poor
institutions.

The use of NSF funds to hire substitute teachers is allowed under the
following conditions: (1) it is necessary to meet the goals and objectives
of the project; and (2) it can be documented that the substitute teachers
are directly replacing teachers participating in the NSF-funded project.
Substitute teachers should be paid in accordance with established school
district policies, and in lieu of paying the teachers participating in the
project.  Records must be maintained on the hiring and use of substitutes.

 Note that indirect costs may not be charged on participant support costs.

National Visiting Committee: For large projects (generally those requesting
a total of $750,000 or more), the budget should include provisions for a
National Visiting Committee (NVC) to visit the project on an annual basis.
An NVC is a group of experts who provide advice to the project staff,
assess the plans and progress of the project (and make reports both to the
project leadership and to NSF), and enhance the dissemination of the
project's products. Typically, ATE Projects enlist four to six members for
an NVC, and ATE Centers enlist eight to ten. After an award is made, an NSF
program officer will work with the grantee to finalize NVC membership. But
the proposal should address how the NVC will be used in the project.
(Additional information describing the role of NVCs can be found in the
brochure "National Visiting Committees," which was prepared by the Montana
Systemic Teacher Excellence Preparation Project and is available on the Web
at http://ecept.net/article.pl?sid=01/03/08/2318240.)

C. Due Dates

Proposals must be submitted by the following date(s):

Preliminary Proposals (optional):

     April 23, 2003
          (Optional except for LSMD and LSTP)

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

     October 15, 2003

D. FastLane Requirements

Proposers are required to prepare and submit all proposals for this
announcement/solicitation through the FastLane system. Detailed
instructions for proposal preparation and submission via FastLane are
available at: http://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 announcement/solicitation should be referred to the
NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this
announcement/solicitation.

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. Proposers
are no longer required to provide a paper copy of the signed Proposal Cover
Sheet to NSF. Further instructions regarding this process are available on
the FastLane Website at: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov

VI. PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION

A. NSF Proposal Review Process

Reviews of proposals submitted to NSF are solicited from peers with
expertise in the substantive area of the proposed research or education
project. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the
oversight of the review process. NSF invites the proposer to suggest, at
the time of submission, the names of appropriate or inappropriate
reviewers. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts with
the proposer. Special efforts are made to recruit reviewers from
non-academic institutions, minority-serving institutions, or adjacent
disciplines to that principally addressed in the proposal.

The National Science Board approved revised criteria for evaluating
proposals at its meeting on March 28, 1997 (NSB 97-72). All NSF proposals
are evaluated through use of the two merit review criteria. In some
instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to
highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

On July 8, 2002, the NSF Director issued Important Notice 127,
Implementation of new Grant Proposal Guide Requirements Related to the
Broader Impacts Criterion. This Important Notice reinforces the importance
of addressing both criteria in the preparation and review of all proposals
submitted to NSF. NSF continues to strengthen its internal processes to
ensure that both of the merit review criteria are addressed when making
funding decisions.

In an effort to increase compliance with these requirements, the January
2002 issuance of the GPG incorporated revised proposal preparation
guidelines relating to the development of the Project Summary and Project
Description. Chapter II of the GPG specifies that Principal Investigators
(PIs) must address both merit review criteria in separate statements within
the one-page Project Summary. This chapter also reiterates that broader
impacts resulting from the proposed project must be addressed in the
Project Description and described as an integral part of the narrative.

Effective October 1, 2002, NSF will return without review proposals that do
not separately address both merit review criteria within the Project
Summary. It is believed that these changes to NSF proposal preparation and
processing guidelines will more clearly articulate the importance of
broader impacts to NSF-funded projects.

The two National Science Board approved merit review criteria are listed
below (see the Grant Proposal Guide Chapter III.A for further information).
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 he/she is qualified
to make judgments.

     What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
     How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and
     understanding within its own field or across different fields? How
     well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the
     project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of
     the prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and
     explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and
     organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to
     resources?

     What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
     How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while
     promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed
     activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g.,
     gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will
     it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as
     facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the
     results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and
     technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed
     activity to society?

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

     Integration of Research and Education
     One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals is to foster
     integration of research and education through the programs, projects,
     and activities it supports at academic and research institutions.
     These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals
     may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators,
     and students and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse
     education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through
     the diversity of learning perspectives.

     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

     For the ATE program, questions such as the following are often
     relevant to evaluating proposals in terms of NSF's merit review
     criteria:

     Intellectual Merit

        o Does the proposed project address a major challenge facing
          technician education?
        o Does the project have potential for improving student learning of
          important science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM)
          principles?
        o Are the goals and objectives, and the plans and procedures for
          achieving them, worthwhile, well-developed, and realistic?
        o Are the proposed outcomes and evaluation of those
          outcomes clearly tied to goals and objectives?
        o Is the rationale for selecting particular activities or
          components for development or adaptation clearly
          articulated?
        o Does the project design consider the background, preparation, and
          experience of the target audience?
        o Is the project informed by research in teaching and learning,
          current pedagogical issues, the efforts of others (particularly
          other NSF-funded projects), and relevant literature?
        o Does the project provide for effective assessment of student
          learning, which reflects the proposed educational objectives and
          practices?
        o Are plans for evaluation of the project appropriate and adequate
          for the project's size and scope, and will the evaluation
          appropriately inform project development?
        o Does the project have the potential to provide fundamental
          improvements in teaching and learning through effective uses of
          instructional technologies?
        o Is the project led by, and supported by the involvement of,
          capable faculty (and where appropriate, practicing scientists,
          mathematicians, engineers, and technicians), who have recent and
          relevant experience in education, in research, or in the
          workplace?
        o Is the project supported by adequate facilities, resources, and
          departmental commitment?
        o Is the evidence of institutional support clear and
          compelling,and have plans for long term institutionalization been
          addressed?

     Broader Impacts

        o Does the project address the current and future needs of business
          and industry for technicians?
        o Does the project enhance the status of technician
          education?
        o Are the proposed activities integrated into the academic
          program(s) of the participating institution(s)?
        o To what extent will the results of the project contribute to the
          knowledge base of activities that enhance student
          learning?
        o Will the project evaluation inform others through the
          communication of results?
        o Are the results of the project likely to be useful at other
          institutions?
        o What is the potential for the project to produce widely used
          products that can be disseminated through commercial or other
          channels? Are plans for producing, marketing, and distributing
          these products appropriate and adequate?
        o Will the project result in significantly improved content and
          pedagogical preparation of STEM faculty and teachers?
        o Does the project effectively address one or more of the following
          objectives: ensuring the highest quality education for those
          students planning to pursue STEM careers; increasing the
          participation of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons
          with disabilities; providing a foundation for scientific,
          technological, and workplace literacy; developing multi- and
          interdisciplinary courses and curricula; developing courses and
          curricula that are aligned with national standards, as
          appropriate?

B. Review Protocol and Associated Customer Service Standard

All proposals are carefully reviewed by at least three other persons
outside NSF who are experts in the particular field represented by the
proposal. Proposals submitted in response to this announcement/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.

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 Director. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of
the decision to award or decline funding.

In most cases, proposers will be contacted by the Program Officer after his
or her recommendation to award or decline funding has been approved by the
Division Director. This informal notification is not a guarantee of an
eventual 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 date of receipt. The interval ends when the Division
Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.

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 Division 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.A. 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 (NSF-GC-1); * or Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP)
Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that
may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative agreement
awards also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement
Terms and Conditions (CA-1). Electronic mail notification is the preferred
way to transmit NSF awards to organizations that have electronic mail
capabilities and have requested such notification from the Division of
Grants and Agreements.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at
http://www.nsf.gov/home/grants/grants_gac.htm. Paper copies may be obtained
from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (301) 947-2722 or by
e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov.

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions is contained in the
NSF Grant Policy Manual (GPM) Chapter II, available electronically on the
NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gpm. The GPM is also for
sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office
(GPO), Washington, DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO for subscription
information is (202) 512-1800. The GPM may be ordered through the GPO
Website at http://www.gpo.gov.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants),
the PI must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program
Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period.

To assist NSF in evaluating the ATE program and meeting the reporting
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the PI
must also respond annually to a survey that requests information about the
number and characteristics of students and educators that have been
affected by the project; the retention, graduation, and placement rates for
students; the project's impact on workforce needs; awards and other
measures of the quality of the project's products and activities; and other
indicators of the project's effect on the quality and quantity of
technicians being educated for the high-tech workplace. NSF will provide
guidelines for the collection and reporting of data. (NSF may use an
external evaluator to gather and analyze the data.)

Within 90 days after the expiration of an award, the PI also is required to
submit a final project report. Failure to provide final technical reports
delays NSF review and processing of pending proposals for the PI and all
Co-PIs. 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. This system permits electronic submission and
updating of project reports, including information on project participants
(individual and organizational), activities and findings, 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.

VIII. CONTACTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

   * Elizabeth J. Teles, Lead Program Director (MATH), Directorate for
     Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835
     N, telephone: (703) 292-4643, fax: (703) 292-9015, email:
     ejteles@nsf.gov

   * V. Celeste Carter, Program Director (BIO), Directorate for Education &
     Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate Education, 835 n,
     telephone: (703) 292-4656, fax: (703) 292-9015, email:
     vccarter@nsf.gov

   * Gerhard L. Salinger, Lead Program Director, Directorate for Education
     & Human Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, & Informal
     Education, 885 S, telephone: (703) 292-5116, fax: (703) 292-9044,
     email: gsalinge@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

   * email: duefl@nsf.gov

   * email: fastlane@nsf.gov

IX. OTHER PROGRAMS OF INTEREST

The NSF Guide to Programs is a compilation of funding for research and
education in science, mathematics, and engineering. The NSF Guide to
Programs is available electronically at
http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gp. General descriptions of NSF programs,
research areas, and eligibility information for proposal submission are
provided in each chapter.

Many NSF programs offer announcements or solicitations concerning specific
proposal requirements. To obtain additional information about these
requirements, contact the appropriate NSF program offices. Any changes in
NSF's fiscal year programs occurring after press time for the Guide to
Programs will be announced in the NSF E-Bulletin, which is updated daily on
the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/home/ebulletin, and in individual
program announcements/solicitations. Subscribers can also sign up for NSF's
Custom News Service (http://www.nsf.gov/home/cns/start.htm) to be notified
of new funding opportunities that become available.

The Division of Undergraduate Education has compiled a short list of other
funding opportunities for undergraduate STEM education, which can be found
on the Web at http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/ehr/due/links/other_programs.asp.

ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds research and education in most
fields of science and engineering. Awardees are wholly responsible for
conducting their project activities and preparing the results for
publication. Thus, the Foundation does not assume responsibility for such
findings or their interpretation.

NSF welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists, engineers and
educators. The Foundation strongly encourages women, minorities and persons
with disabilities to compete fully in its programs. In accordance with
Federal statutes, regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of
race, color, age, sex, national origin or disability shall be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance
from NSF, although some programs may have special requirements that limit
eligibility.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED)
provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with
disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research
assistants) to work on NSF-supported projects. See the GPG Chapter II,
Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of
proposals.

 The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific
 progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and
 cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences,
 mathematics, and engineering.

 To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download
 copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the
 NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov

        * Location:                        4201 Wilson Blvd.
                                           Arlington, VA 22230
        * For General Information          (703) 292-5111
          (NSF Information Center):
        * TDD (for the hearing-impaired):  (703) 292-5090

        * To Order Publications or Forms:

               Send an e-mail to:          pubs@nsf.gov

                 or telephone:             (301) 947-2722

        * To Locate NSF Employees:         (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; 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 applicant 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 needing information as part of the review process
or in order to coordinate programs; 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," 63 Federal
Register 267 (January 5, 1998), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and
Associated Records," 63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998). 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 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 this burden estimate and any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden,
to: Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, Division of Administrative
Services, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230.

OMB control number: 3145-0058.


nsf.gov                   | About NSF | Funding | Publications | News &
                          Media | Search | Site Map | Help



[NSF Celebrating 50 Years]The National Science Foundation
                          4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington,
                          Virginia 22230, USA                   Policies
                          Tel: 703-292-5111, FIRS: 800-877-8339 Contact NSF
                          | TDD: 703-292-5090                   Customize