Centers for Learning and Teaching (CLT)

Program Solicitation
NSF 03-522
Replaces Document 02-038

   National Science Foundation
   Directorate for Education and Human Resources
   Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education



Preliminary Proposal Due Date(s) (optional):

     February 28, 2003

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

     April 24, 2003

REVISIONS AND UPDATES

This solicitation is basically unchanged from last year.  Changes that have
been made include: the elimination of Higher Education Centers; requiring
development of strategies for cooperation when proposed Centers include a
partner of another larger-scale, NSF-supported project (e.g., Math and
Science Partnership); and potential for renewal.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS


General Information

Program Title:

     Centers for Learning and Teaching (CLT)

Synopsis of Program:

     The Centers for Learning and Teaching (CLT) program focuses on
     the advanced preparation of science, technology, engineering, and
     mathematics (STEM) educators, as well as the establishment of
     meaningful partnerships among education stakeholders, especially
     Ph.D. granting institutions, school systems, and informal
     education performers.  Its goals are to renew and diversify the
     cadre of leaders in STEM education; to increase the number of
     K-16 educators capable of delivering high-quality STEM
     instruction and assessment; and to conduct research into STEM
     education issues of national import (e.g., the nature of
     learning, teaching strategies, and reform policies and outcomes).

     Centers for Learning and Teaching

     Centers with a programmatic focus on elementary, secondary, or
     informal education will provide a rich environment that melds
     research, teacher education, and education practice.  Individual
     Centers may have specific foci (e.g., K-6 science, large-scale
     assessments, learning of mathematics), but each will address the
     following three equally important components: (1) renewing and
     diversifying the cadre of leaders in STEM education, particularly
     the higher education faculty who educate STEM teachers and
     professionals in leadership positions at state and
     district-levels and other education organizations; (2) enhancing
     the content knowledge and pedagogical skills of current and
     future elementary and secondary teachers; and (3) supporting
     research into  STEM education issues of national import.  The CLT
     effort builds upon previous activities in the preparation and
     professional development of teachers and provides opportunities
     for doctoral and post-doctoral students in the disciplines and in
     STEM education to acquire the knowledge and skills to educate the
     next generation of K-12 teachers.

     Center proposals must involve partnerships of organizations with
     a scientific, engineering, and/or educational mission.  Among
     these are two- and four-year colleges and universities, state and
     local education agencies, professional societies, research
     laboratories, business and industry, informal science centers,
     instructional materials development centers, private foundations,
     and/or other public and private organizations (whether for profit
     or nonprofit).  Each Center must have one or more school district
     partners (or an appropriate group of schools, e.g., specialized
     schools), as well as a partner that is authorized to award
     doctoral degrees in an appropriate STEM education area.

     Higher Education Centers

     A Higher Education component was added to the CLT program in 2002
     and two Higher Education Centers were established.  No
     competition will be held in 2003.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

   * John (Spud) Bradley, Section Head, Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, & Informal Education,
     885 S, telephone: (703) 292-5091, fax: (703) 292-9044, email:
     jbradley@nsf.gov

   * Michael R. Haney, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, & Informal Education,
     885 S, telephone: (703) 292-5102, fax: (703) 292-9044, email:
     mhaney@nsf.gov

   * Janice M. Earle, Senior Program Director, Directorate for Education &
     Human Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, & Informal
     Education, 885 S, telephone: (703) 292-5097, fax: (703) 292-9044,
     email: jearle@nsf.gov

   * David B. Campbell, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, & Informal Education,
     885 S, telephone: (703) 292-5093, fax: (703) 292-9044, email:
     dcampbel@nsf.gov

   * Monica Neagoy, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, & Informal Education,
     885 S, telephone: (703) 292-4688, fax: (703) 292-9044, email:
     mneagoy@nsf.gov

   * Susan H. Hixson, Lead Program Director, Higher Education Centers,
     Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate
     Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4623, fax: (703) 292-9015,
     email: shixson@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: None Specified.
   * Limit on Number of Proposals: An institution or agency may submit only one
     CLT proposal as the lead institution for a given competition.  However, an
	 institution or agency may be a partner on more than one CLT proposal.


Award Information

   * Anticipated Type of Award: Continuing Grant
   * Estimated Number of Awards: 2 to 3
   * Anticipated Funding Amount: $6,000,000 this fiscal year, pending
     availability of funding - $2,000,000 will be allocated per year per
     Center - award will be for up to 5 years.

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 required (Percentage).
   * Cost Sharing Level/Amount: 10%
   * Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: None.
   * Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please
     see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

   * Preliminary Proposals (optional) :
          February 28, 2003
   * Full Proposal Deadline Date(s) (due by 5 p.m proposer's local time):
          April 24, 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: Additional award conditions apply. Please see the
     full text of this solicitation for further information.
   * 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 Centers for Learning and Teaching (CLT) program is a comprehensive,
research-based effort that addresses critical issues and national needs of
the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instructional
workforce across the entire spectrum of formal and informal education.

The need to replace a large number of educators who are expected to retire
over the next decade is widely understood and recent studies have indicated
that many inadequately prepared educators enter the profession each
year.  Recent reports also indicate that the doctoral-level professionals
needed to educate the K-12 instructional workforce are in short
supply.  Replenishing and diversifying the instructional workforce, K-16,
and conducting ongoing research related to learning and teaching across the
spectrum of these activities are clear national needs.

A growing body of research articulates both the needs of, and possible
solutions to, the current state of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education.  What Matters Most: Teaching for America's
Future (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996)
indicates that over 50,000 inadequately prepared teachers enter the
teaching profession each year.  Indeed, a recent report indicates that in
grades 7-12, approximately 33% of mathematics teachers and 20% of science
teachers have neither a major nor minor in their field; yet these under
qualified teachers teach over 26% of mathematics students and over 16% of
science students (Ingersoll, 1999).  Moreover, of those teachers who enter
with adequate backgrounds, 30% to 50% are likely to leave the profession
within five years.  Many of those teachers teach science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics.

At a time when the K-12 student population is becoming increasingly
diverse, the K-12 instructional workforce has not diversified appreciably
nor has its ability to provide appropriate instruction for diverse learners
increased.  It is anticipated that Centers will use varied approaches to
diversify the instructional workforce as well as to prepare teachers and
faculty to use instructional techniques that enhance the STEM learning of
all students.

Recent studies have identified a positive relationship between the use of
teaching practices based on national standards and improved student
learning (Cohen & Hill, 1998; Kahle, Meece, & Scantlebury, 2000; Klein,
Hamilton, McCaffrey, Stecher, Robyn, & Burroughs, 1999).  Further, the
efficacy of combining professional development with standards-based
curriculum is becoming evident (Weiss, Montgomery, Ridgway, & Bond,
1998).  There is a need to couple this emerging knowledge base with new and
effective ways of preparing future teachers and of providing professional
development for current teachers that will produce, as well as retain,
effective teachers at the elementary and secondary levels (U.S. Department
of Education, 2000).

Doctoral, Post-Doctoral, and Internship Component

A critical CLT component is to provide doctoral, post-doctoral, and intern
programs for the broad array of professionals who educate and support the
K-12 instructional workforce.  These professionals include university
scientists, mathematicians and/or engineers who prepare future teachers
either in discipline or education courses, local and state supervisors and
curriculum coordinators, informal science educators, education researchers,
curriculum developers, and assessment and evaluation
professionals.  Regardless of their future roles, these professionals must
master their disciplines; be knowledgeable about current reforms,
assessment issues, and effective uses of information technology; and be
expert at translating research findings into educational practice.  They
need to understand national and state standards and know how to connect the
goals of mathematics, science, engineering, and technology education to
classroom practices that lead to enhanced student achievement.  They should
understand the research base for both student learning and teacher
education and know how to help teachers internalize critical elements of
that research into instruction.  Moreover, they should be able to relate
their expertise to curricular and instructional issues in K-12 STEM
education.

Therefore, Centers for Learning and Teaching will educate these
professionals in the context of educating the current K-12 instructional
workforce.  It is anticipated that the partnerships required for each
Center will provide learning laboratories for these tasks, and that the
work of each Center will complement rather than duplicate other CLTs in
meeting national needs.

Teacher Education Component

An evolving body of research on models of effective professional
development (e.g., Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998) provides
the basis for the Center program teacher education component.  Effective
pre-service and in-service teacher professional development will enhance
the capacity of the K-12 instructional workforce, add to the knowledge base
about effective teacher education, and lead to documented improvement in
student achievement.  Exploring information technology both to enhance
instruction for K-12 students and as a means of providing professional
development of, and support for, teachers is a high priority for
NSF.  Programs addressing teacher professional development, teacher
preparation, and/or the induction period for teachers will reflect the
research in the pertinent area and include high quality undergraduate
courses in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology that are
taught through research-based models (e.g., extended inquiry,
problem-solving).  Other topics of high priority for NSF include:
under-prepared and out-of-field teachers; retention of qualified teachers
in the profession; strategies for assisting formal and informal educators
to meet the needs of all learners; teachers prepared for varied roles
within the instructional workforce (e.g., master teachers, department
chairs); and opportunities for collaboration with informal science
education as well as the education of informal science educators.

Research Component

It is essential that education innovations be built on solid research and
that the results of the latest research be disseminated to colleagues and
practitioners in a timely and useful manner.  Centers for Learning and
Teaching are positioned to be a major resource for research and its
dissemination.  The research undertaken by each Center should address a
recognized national need and also connect the doctoral education component
to the K-12 teacher education component in a symbiotic manner.  The
overarching research agenda will not only point to areas of national need,
but will also be an indication of the focus of the Center.

The research supported by the CLT program is a critical component of the
research effort funded by the Directorate for Education and Human
Resources.  As a part of that overall effort, researchers at each Center
are part of a larger community that contributes to better understandings of
learning and teaching of STEM subjects.  Opportunities to collaborate
across Centers on areas of common interest are afforded.  This will create
a program-wide research agenda and provide avenues for mutual assistance in
furthering this agenda.

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Program Description Contents

A.  Goals

B.  Project Characteristics

     1.  Focus

     2.  Coverage

     3.  Doctoral, Post-Doctoral, and Internship Component

     4.  Teacher Education Component

     5.  Research Component

     6.  Institutionalization

     7.  Evaluation

     8.  Dissemination

     9.  Relationship to other Projects supported by NSF

_____________________________________________________

A.  GOALS

The CLT program calls for a systemic approach to the development and
enhancement of the instructional workforce (K through graduate school)
where professionals are educated in an environment of research and
practice.  For STEM educators, a Center will provide opportunities to
enhance their content knowledge, develop teaching strategies that lead to
improved student learning, implement high quality instructional materials,
incorporate information technology, and develop skills in using various
strategies for assessing student learning.  For graduate students,
post-doctoral students, and interns, a Center will provide study and
research opportunities with the goal of improving learning, teaching, and
assessment across the educational continuum.

Although Centers will develop different models to achieve their objectives,
all will be expected to address the following equally important goals that
are based upon documented national needs.

   * Centers will renew and diversify the cadre of national leaders in STEM
     education.  This component will involve providing basic and advanced
     education for doctoral and post-doctoral students who will specialize
     in STEM education; who will provide the expertise for large-scale
     assessment and/or evaluation of educational reform; who will conduct
     research on STEM teaching and learning; who will develop the next
     generation of curricular materials; who will become local and state
     supervisors; and/or who will develop future directions in informal
     science education.

   * Centers will increase significantly the numbers of K-12 STEM educators
     in formal (schools) and/or informal (museums, zoos, botanical gardens,
     etc.) settings who have up-to-date content knowledge in their
     disciplinary area and who are prepared to implement standards-based
     instruction and new assessment strategies.  Further, these educators
     will be able to use information technology as an aid to student
     learning.

   * Centers will provide substantive opportunities for research into the
     nature of learning, strategies of teaching, policies of educational
     reform, and outcomes of standards-based reform.

The three goals are synergistic and inter-related; that is, a Center's
research agenda, teacher education activities, and graduate programs should
inform one another and focus on the Center's documented national needs.

B.  PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

1.  Focus.  In order to meet the overarching purposes of this Solicitation,
Centers will address all or an appropriate part of the continuum of teacher
education and will prepare STEM education professionals through doctoral
programs or by providing post-doctoral and internship opportunities for
individuals drawn either from a STEM discipline or from education.  The
teacher education and graduate/post doctoral components will be developed
and carried out through appropriate collaborations between STEM
disciplinary and STEM education faculty.  Teacher education is likely to be
an ongoing activity of the collaborating institutions, and undergraduate
and graduate students as well as interns should have opportunities to
develop their expertise through interactions with the teachers
participating in those activities.  The goal of each Center will be on
connecting teacher education with the education of those who will be
prepared to assume national roles in education.  It is anticipated that
each Center's efforts will focus on a national need in STEM education and
that evidence addressing the scope and urgency of that need will be
included in the proposal.  Because the CLT program is addressing a broad
range of national needs, proposals should include an explanation detailing
the uniqueness of the proposed Center vis-a-vis existing
Centers.  Descriptions of existing Centers can be viewed
at www.ehr.nsf.gov/ehr/esie.

The following focus areas are provided as examples only, and are not meant
to limit the scope of potential proposals.  A Center that focuses on the
implications of student and community culture for teaching and learning
STEM subjects, where the unique attributes of school communities contribute
to the design and delivery of education, would add new understandings.  A
Center that could help research and build the national capacity for
technology and engineering education, which being newer disciplines do not
have the rich research, developed base, and tradition that mathematics and
science education enjoy, would address a critical national issue.  A Center
that looks critically at the adoption and implementation of instructional
technologies (as a medium for learning and teaching) could provide a
research foundation for strategies that promote appropriate and best
use.  A Center could focus on policy issues and new administrative and
organizational paradigms to change the structures that support STEM
education, including an examination of specialists' roles, determining the
balance of STEM expertise needed, and evaluating the methods and benefits
of incorporating all appropriate resources.  Another Center might
investigate research designs, instruments, and methodologies to assess the
effectiveness of STEM instructional materials.

2.  Coverage.  Centers may address mathematics, science, and/or technology
education.  Each proposal must contain a rationale for the grade band
(e.g., K-12, K-6, 7-12) chosen for emphasis.  Centers will include
educational opportunities for substantial numbers of teachers,
administrators, and/or informal science educators as well as programs of
study for doctoral and/or post-doctoral students (including those with
discipline-based degrees).  Proposals should be developed cooperatively
among several institutions of higher education and should include some
combination of state or local education agencies, community colleges,
museums, etc.  Such cooperation should leverage the expertise of different
institutions.  Collaboration is encouraged also with business and industry
and with international institutions.  Doctoral students, post-doctoral
students, and interns might complete different parts of their education at
different institutions and/or Centers in order to develop special
expertise.  Each Center proposal must present a clear plan for recruiting
highly qualified candidates into teacher education programs, in-service
activities, and graduate and post-doctoral level programs.  Recruitment
plans will include strategies for expanding the diversity of the STEM
education workforce; these strategies should document and build upon
existing effective efforts.

3.  Doctoral, Post-Doctoral, and Internship Component.
Educational opportunities for the STEM instructional workforce are offered
by a variety of professionals.  They include university teacher educators;
scientists, mathematicians, and engineers; curriculum developers;
district-level or state-level supervisors and coordinators; lead teachers;
informal science educators; assessment specialists; and school
administrators (e.g., principals).  Programs of study for these
professionals will include clearly delineated graduate programs (Ph.D., or
Ed.D.  Master's programs may be included).  Proposals will have clear
statements of focus, indicating what backgrounds and experiences will be
required for entrance and discuss how the program of study might be adapted
for applicants with varying kinds of backgrounds.  New ways to involve each
Center's collaborative partners, as well as collaborations across Centers
as the CLT program evolves are encouraged.

Innovation in graduate programs and post-doctoral education is encouraged
as Centers seek to impact both the scope and quality of the STEM education
infrastructure.  One or more of the following activities are
envisioned.  First, Centers will provide rich opportunities to conduct
research and assessment studies in STEM learning and teaching.  Second, for
doctoral students, post-doctoral students, and interns coming from
scientific, mathematics, and engineering disciplines, there will be
in-depth experiences with K-12 STEM teaching, administration, assessment,
and curricula.  Third, for doctoral students, post-doctoral students and
interns with education backgrounds, Centers will provide content courses
and other learning experiences related to the Center's particular
focus.  Centers will provide professionals with opportunities to apply
their developing knowledge in realistic settings and provide extensive
mentoring to help them develop a broad network of contacts that will
provide support after the program of study is complete

4.  Teacher Education Component.  Centers may address a wide range of
issues in teacher education such as: teacher preparation, induction, and
internships; teaching out-of-field; licensure programs; alternative
certification, master's degree programs; distance education; or some
combination of these topics.

Proposals will describe ways that teachers will be assisted in learning
content and pedagogy in cooperation with scientists, mathematicians and
engineers.  Innovative uses of information technology are
encouraged.  Activities will go beyond standard courses or generic
in-service activities, be based on national standards, and include
effective pedagogy for adult learning.  Innovative ways of providing
ongoing support for participants are encouraged in the Centers and may
involve collaborations with local or state educational agencies or
electronic networks.

5.  Research Component.  Centers will articulate an overarching research
agenda that defines the Center focus and provides linkages to the doctoral
education component and the K-12 teacher education component.  The research
agenda should be grounded in the K-12 teacher education component and also
contribute to that work.  There are well-developed and well-understood
means for communicating research results to others in the education
research community and these should be used by researchers supported by
Centers.  Additionally, Centers should devise ways to make the results of
their research available to teachers, school administrators, supervisors,
and professional societies in ways that can have an impact on practice.

6.  Institutionalization.  Proposals will include plans for ensuring
continuation of critical aspects of the Centers after the period of NSF
support.  In particular, the support strategies for teacher education need
to be institutionalized and critical aspects of graduate programs should be
sustained by the collaborating institutions.

7.  Evaluation.  Evaluation of both the teacher education and graduate,
post-doctoral, and internship components that will provide formative and
summative feedback to revise and refocus a Center is required.  The
evaluation plan must describe evidence that will indicate that the Center's
goal are met, the data that will be collected, benchmarks that will be
measured, methods that will be used in evaluating the project, and the
timeline for the evaluation process.  It is expected that data will be
collected that are appropriate to the goals of the Center and of the CLT
program.  The evaluation should document the Center's effect on students,
teachers, graduate students, faculty, institutional environment, etc.

Each proposed Center must commit to cooperating with an NSF third-party
evaluation, including a longitudinal study of impact that will be funded
independently by NSF.  As part of this evaluation, Centers will be
responsible for providing requested data to multiple program evaluators.

8.  Dissemination.  The proposal must include strategies and plans for
communicating the activities and outcomes of the Center to other
professionals in the STEM and education communities throughout and after
the project.

9.  Relationship to other Projects supported by NSF.  Centers that propose
to include partners from an existing or proposed Math and Science
Partnership (MSP) or other large-scale project should carefully delineate
plans to avoid duplication of effort and should provide strategies for
cooperation.  Details should be given for linking the research agenda of
the Center to the work of the MSP or other project.  Of particular concern
is the need for coherence in goals and effort of work in partner school
districts.  Proposals for a Center that would include a partner that is
also a partner in an existing or proposed MSP or other large-scale project
must provide evidence that all partners have the necessary capacity to
carry out the proposed work of both projects, that the goals and approaches
of the two projects are aligned, and that management structures are put in
place that will further the goals of both projects without inhibiting the
attainment of the goals of either.

References

Brownstein, E.M., & Destino, T.  (1994, April).  Scenes from a science
classroom: An enrichment program experience.  Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans.  (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No.  ED 375 001).

Cohen D.  K., & Hill, H.  C.  (1998).  State policy and classroom
performance: Mathematics reform in California (CPRE Policy
Brief).  Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Griffard, P.B., & Wandersee, J.H.  (1998, April).  Challenges to meaningful
learning among African-American females at an urban science high
school.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.  (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No.  ED 417 977).

Ingersoll, R.  M.  (1999, March).  The problem of underqualified teachers
in American secondary schools.  Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26-37.

Kahle, J.  B., Meece, J., & Scantlebury, K.  (2000).  Urban
African-American middle school science students: Does standards-based
teaching make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9),
1019-1041.

Klein, S., Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D., Stecher, B., Robyn, A., &
Burroughs, D.  (1999, May).  Teaching practices and student achievement:
Report of first-year findings from the "Mosaic" study of systemic
initiatives in mathematics and science.  Los Angeles, CA: Rand Corporation.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.  W., Love, N., & Stiles,
K.  E.  (1998).  Designing professional development for teachers of science
and mathematics.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (1996).  What matters
most: Teaching for America's future.  Report of the National Commission on
Teaching and America's Future.  Woodbridge, VA, 22194-5239.

National Science Board (2000).  Science and Engineering Indicators -
2000.  Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB-00-1).

Teel, K.  M., Debruin-Parecki, A., & Covington, M.V.  (1998).  Teaching
strategies that honor and motivate inner-city African-American students: A
school/university collaboration.  Teaching and Teacher Education, 14,
479-495.

U.S.  Department of Education (2000).  Before It's Too Late: A Report to
the Nation from The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching
for the 21st Century.  Washington, DC: U.S.  Department of Education.

Weiss, I.  R., Montgomery, D.  L., Ridgway, C.  J., & Bond, S.  L.  (1998,
December).  Local systemic change through teacher enhancement: Year three
cross-site report.  Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

The categories of proposers identified in the  Grant Proposal Guide are
eligible to submit proposals under this program announcement/solicitation.

An institution or agency may submit only one CLT proposal as the lead
institution for a given competition. However, an institution or agency may
be a partner on more than one CLT proposal.

Center proposals must involve partnerships of organizations with a
scientific, engineering, and/or educational mission.  Among these are two-
and four-year colleges and universities, state and local education
agencies, professional societies, research laboratories, business and
industry, informal science centers, instructional materials development
centers, private foundations, and/or other public and private organizations
(whether for profit or nonprofit).  Each Center must have one or more
school district partners (or an appropriate group of schools, e.g.,
specialized schools), as well as a partner that is authorized to award
doctoral degrees in an appropriate STEM education area.

IV. AWARD INFORMATION

Under this solicitation, awards will be made with an initial commitment of
five years and a potential duration of ten years.  The progress and plans
of each funded CLT will be reviewed by NSF annually, prior to receiving
continued NSF support.  In the fourth year of operation, the CLT may submit
a renewal proposal for continued support, which will undergo merit
review.  The CLT's achievements and future plans will be evaluated
comprehensively.  The review will determine if the CLT is meeting the goals
and objectives as originally proposed.  The CLT performance assessment will
be guided by the goals and objectives of the CLT program and the individual
goals of the particular CLT.

Centers successful in passing the fourth-year review will be renewed for
another five years, commencing at the beginning of the sixth year, and
including a two-year phase-out period.  Funding levels, in this subsequent
period, will be considered at higher levels based on documented success of
the Center, a compelling case for the proposed research efforts, and
availability of funding.  Centers that pass the fourth-year review will
continue to be reviewed by NSF at least every 18 months.  Centers that do
not pass the fourth year review will be phased-out over a one-year period,
except that funds may be provided for continued support of the doctoral
students appointed under the provisions of the original grant.  The NSF
will support a CLT for a maximum of ten years.

Support levels for graduate and post-doctoral students and interns may vary
depending upon the academic background and/or teaching expertise of
applicants.  It is envisioned that some advanced students will be paid
academic-year stipends (in accordance with local institutional rates) plus
tuition and fee waivers, while experienced professionals from teaching or
other fields may be remunerated in proportion to their current salaries (up
to $35,000/ten months) plus tuition and fee waivers.  Professional
development activities for teachers may offer stipends of up to $100 per
day; provide tuition and fee waivers for graduate credits; or provide
support for substitutes to permit the release of teachers during the school
day.  Although proposals may request funds for the development of new
graduate courses in STEM education, the cost of delivering such courses may
not be covered.

All Centers will be required to (1) submit annual reports of progress, (2)
participate in a reverse site visit before the third year of funding,
and  (3) participate in an NSF evaluation of the Centers' program.

V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Preliminary Proposals (optional):
A preliminary proposal is optional, but strongly recommended before
submission of a full Center proposal. The preliminary proposal must be
submitted via FastLane. The Project Description may not exceed six pages
and should explain how the proposed Center will address the three goals
articulated in the program solicitation, how these goals will be connected,
and how the Center will be evaluated and managed. Additionally, identify
the anticipated partners and describe their expected roles. No budget is
necessary at this time. The project description must be single-spaced
written in 12-point type with one-inch margins. Feedback from program staff
will be provided to help frame a full proposal.  To ensure time to obtain
program response, preliminary proposals should be submitted, via FastLane,
by 5:00 pm local time on February 28, 2003.

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.

Proposers' attention is directed to the recent NSF requirement that the two
general review criteria, Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact, must be
explicitly addressed in the project summary and project description of
proposals.  Additional review criteria described below should be addressed
when preparing a proposal.  Project Description may not exceed 20
single-spaced pages in 12-point type with one-inch margins.  Submission by
FastLane is required for both preliminary proposals (preproposals) and full
proposals.

Proposers are reminded to identify the program announcement/solicitation
number ((03-522)) 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:

Cost sharing at a level of 10 percent of the requested total amount of NSF
funds is required for all proposals submitted in response to this
announcement/solicitation. 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 in 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:

None.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Center awards will be made as continuing grants for up to five years, with
the possibility of a five-year renewal.  Other budget limitations are
identified in section IV, Award Information.

C. Due Dates

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

Preliminary Proposals (optional):

     February 28, 2003

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

     April 24, 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

     The following points will also be used in evaluating all CLT
     proposals.

     Institutional Capacity.  What involvement has the proposing
     institution and its partners had in substantial, high quality STEM
     education programs? What is the expertise of the faculty and staff who
     will have involvement with the program? How does it relate to their
     role in Center activities? What are the plans for institutionalizing
     the Center?

     Project Design.  How does the design of the opportunities proposed for
     teachers and graduate and post-doctoral students reflect current
     understanding of high-quality professional development? Does the
     project design allow for differences in background knowledge and
     experience that participants will bring to the programs? How do
     scientists and mathematicians contribute to the project?

     Impact.  What is the likelihood that the activities will produce
     leaders who can impact STEM education? Will the recruitment and
     program activities enhance the diversity of the STEM workforce? What
     is the potential for the project to significantly strengthen the
     nation's formal and informal STEM instructional workforce, both at the
     K-12 and higher education levels?

     Plan.  What is the likelihood that the proposed project will achieve
     its goals? How will the plan improve the disciplinary content
     knowledge and instructional skills of STEM teachers and faculty? Is
     the project informed by research in teaching and learning? Do the
     proposed activities address and promote equity and diversity in the
     STEM workforce? Are plans for dissemination and sustainability
     adequate?

     Cooperative Relationships.  Are the working relationships among
     collaborating parties strong? How will collaborations be strengthened
     as the project progresses?

     Research.  Are the research findings at the Center used to inform and
     improve student learning and teaching practice in the Center's
     specific focal area? Does the research add in a coherent way to the
     body of knowledge about STEM learning, teaching, assessment, policies,
     teacher preparation/professional development, uses of information
     technology, etc.? Will the research findings be disseminated in a
     comprehensive way? Will the research address issues of equity and
     diversity in STEM education?

     Evaluation.  Are the goals of the project clearly stated and
     measurable? Will the evaluation plan provide data on the impact of the
     project, on participants' knowledge of content and pedagogy, on the
     quality of instruction for students or teachers, on the effectiveness
     of graduate students in improving mathematics and science education,
     and on the enhancement of K-12 student learning?



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.

Special Award Conditions:

Compliance with NSF third-party evaluation, as described under Project
Characteristics in Section II B.

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.

Standard annual reports are to be submitted via FastLane.  Additional data
may also be requested.  Such requests will be set as conditions to either
the initial award or to continuing yearly funding.

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:

   * John (Spud) Bradley, Section Head, Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, & Informal Education,
     885 S, telephone: (703) 292-5091, fax: (703) 292-9044, email:
     jbradley@nsf.gov

   * Michael R. Haney, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, & Informal Education,
     885 S, telephone: (703) 292-5102, fax: (703) 292-9044, email:
     mhaney@nsf.gov

   * Janice M. Earle, Senior Program Director, Directorate for Education &
     Human Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, & Informal
     Education, 885 S, telephone: (703) 292-5097, fax: (703) 292-9044,
     email: jearle@nsf.gov

   * David B. Campbell, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, & Informal Education,
     885 S, telephone: (703) 292-5093, fax: (703) 292-9044, email:
     dcampbel@nsf.gov

   * Monica Neagoy, Program Director, Directorate for Education & Human
     Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, & Informal Education,
     885 S, telephone: (703) 292-4688, fax: (703) 292-9044, email:
     mneagoy@nsf.gov

   * Susan H. Hixson, Lead Program Director, Higher Education Centers,
     Directorate for Education & Human Resources, Division of Undergraduate
     Education, 835 N, telephone: (703) 292-4623, fax: (703) 292-9015,
     email: shixson@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

   * email: fastlane@nsf.gov

   * email: ehr-esie-centers@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.

Teacher Professional Continuum, Division of Elementary, Secondary, and
Informal Education  -- (forthcoming, see http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/esie).

Instructional Materials Development (IMD) -- (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/esie).

Informal Science Education (ISE) -- Program Solicitation [NSF-03-511]
(http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_key=nsf03511)

Information Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers
(ITEST) -- Program Solicitation [NSF-02-147]
(http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf02147).

Math and Science Partnership Program (MSP) -- (https://www.ehr.nsf.gov/msp)

NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12)
-- (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/dge)

Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching --
(http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/pres_awards/).

Advanced Technological Education (ATE) -- (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/due).

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, Information Dissemination
Branch, Division of Administrative Services, National Science Foundation,
Arlington, VA 22230.

OMB control number: 3145-0058.