DOC

Cycle 10 Supplemental Call for Education and Public Outreach Proposals

By Theresa Sullivan,2014-08-18 02:38
6 views 0
Cycle 10 Supplemental Call for Education and Public Outreach Proposals

Cycle 11 Supplemental Call for Education and Public Outreach Proposals

    Table of Contents

    1. Introduction

    1.1 The Chandra Program Supplemental Call for EPO Proposals 1.1.1 Relationship to NASA and SMD EPO Goals 1.1.2 Program Oversight

    1.1.3 Proposal Review Process: Deadlines and Schedule 1.1.4 Summary of the EPO CfP

    1.1.5 Cancellation of the CfP

    1.2 What's New in Cycle 10

    1.2.1 What's New in NASA's Education Program 1.2.1.1 NASA’s Education Strategic Framework

    1.2.1.2 Yet Another Revised Explanatory Guide 1.2.2 What's New in Chandra

    1.2.2.1 Expanded Eligibility

    1.2.2.2 Self-Partnering

    1.2.3 Reiteration of Key Changes from Cycle 9 1.2.3.1 Direct Funding of Educational Partners or Co-Is 2. Proposal Submission Policies

    2.1 Who May Propose

    2.2 Proposal Confidentiality

    2.3 Proposal Submission

    3. Chandra Cycle 10 EPO Proposal Guidelines

    3.1 Applicable General Policies, Guidelines and Procedures 3.1.1 Key NASA Policy and Guideline Documents 3.1.2 The following overall policies and guidelines apply to the EPO activities

    proposed for supplemental funding to a Chandra research grant: 3.2 EPO Evaluation Criteria

    3.2.1 Intrinsic Merit

    Sub-factor 1: The Quality, Scope, Realism, and Appropriateness of the

    Proposed EPO Program

    Sub-factor 2: Continuity

    Sub-factor 3: Partnerships/Leverage/Sustainability Sub-factor 4: The Appropriateness of Evaluation Plans 3.2.2 Relevance to NASA Objectives

    Sub-factor 1: Customer-Needs Focus

    Sub-factor 2: Content

    Sub-factor 3: Education Standards

    3.2.3 Cost

    Sub-factor 1: Resource Utilization

    3.2.4 Program Balance Factors

    Sub-factor 1: Pipeline

    Sub-factor 2: Diversity

    3.3 More Information about Proposal Budget Guidelines 3.3.1 Content

    3.3.2 Profit

    3.3.3 Computers or Workstations

Cycle 11 Supplemental Call for Education and Public Outreach Proposals

3.3.6 Other Expenses

    3.4 Proposal Evaluation and Selection 4. Electronic Proposal Submission 4.1 Overview and Schedule of Process 4.2 Proposal Content and Format 4.3 Access to Proposal Forms

    4.4 Electronic Submission Process 5. Grant Award

    6. Reporting Requirements

    7. How to Get Help

    7.1 Proposal Submission

    7.2 Cycle 10 CfP

    7.3 SMD EPO Program

     2

    Cycle 11 Supplemental Call for Education and Public Outreach Proposals

1. Introduction

    1.1 The Chandra Program Supplemental Call for EPO Proposals

    The Chandra X-ray Center invites U.S. based scientists whose research proposals have been selected in Stage 1 of the Cycle 11 Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO) research peer review to participate in Cycle 11 of the CXO Education and Public Outreach supplemental (EPO) grant program. (Note: The U.S. is defined as the 50 states and the District of Columbia.) 1.1.1 Relationship to NASA and SMD EPO Goals

    NASA’s founding legislation, the Space Act of 1958, directs the Agency to expand human knowledge of Earth and Space Science phenomena and to preserve the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautics, space science, and technology. High achievement in STEM education is essential to the accomplishment of NASA’s mission. NASA has adopted 3 major education goals

    to pursue: (1) Strengthen NASA and the Nation’s future workforce, (2) Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines, and (3) Engage Americans in NASA’s

    mission and increase Americans’ science and technology literacy.

    The Science Mission Directorate (SMD) has a portfolio of investments in Higher Education, Elementary and Secondary Education, Informal Education and Outreach. It is a major contributor to the overall NASA education and outreach effort. Through such programs as the Supplemental EPO proposals, SMD continues its tradition of supporting education and outreach programs that play a role in preparing, inspiring, exciting, encouraging, and nurturing the young minds of today who will manage and lead the Nation’s laboratories and research

    centers of tomorrow.

    Following the spirit and intent of NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) national EPO program, the goals of the Chandra Cycle 10 supplemental EPO grant program are to encourage collaborative efforts among professional space scientists, professional educators, and public outreach specialists that will broaden knowledge and understanding of the latest discoveries of the Chandra X-ray Observatory, to inspire and engage students, educators, families and the general public, to have a positive impact on the nation's education system, and to help develop the next generation of scientists and technical professionals. The Chandra Cycle 10 EPO proposals should have general intellectual linkage to the parent research program and to the science goals of the Chandra mission. The proposed program should provide intended audiences with current space science and/or related education content. The program or activity should contain significant content based on NASA science or technology.

    1.1.2 Program Oversight

    The Chandra program is sponsored by NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and managed by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). The

     3

    Cycle 11 Supplemental Call for Education and Public Outreach Proposals

    Chandra X-ray Center (CXC), which is funded by NASA via a contract to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) in Cambridge, MA, has the responsibility for: the management of the Chandra science program, the Chandra Education and Public Outreach (EPO) program, the management of the peer reviews which recommend the allocation of observing time and funds (including supplemental EPO funds), the selection of the science and EPO proposals, and the operation of the satellite.

    The funding associated with all awards funded by this Call for Proposals (CfP) flows from NASA through SAO to the CXC.

    1.1.3 Proposal Review Process: Deadlines and Schedule

    The Chandra Stage 1 peer review determines the scientific and technical merits of proposed science investigations. The US-based PIs of those science research proposals selected in Stage 1 are invited to submit a supplemental EPO proposal in response to this CfP.

    Table 1.1: Schedule and Deadlines for the Chandra Cycle 10 EPO opportunity:

    EVENT DATE

    EPO Supplemental CfP Release August 2008

    EPO Proposal Electronic Submission 5PM EDT, 23 October, 2009

    Deadline

    Hard Copy with 1 Signed Institutional Received by SAO by 4PM EDT, 28

    Endorsement and 7 additional copies October 2009

    Cycle 11 EPO Peer Review December 2009

    Selected EPO Proposals Announced December 2009

    Both the electronic and hard copy of the proposal must be identical in terms of the material submitted via the proposal software. If they are not identical, the proposal will be deemed to be non-responsive. Late Proposals will not be considered. We recommend submission well before the deadline to avoid possible last minute problems.

    1.1.4 Summary of the EPO CfP

    This supplemental CfP solicits EPO proposals from eligible Principal Investigators whose Chandra proposals have been selected in Stage 1 (see Section 2.1 for definitions of eligibility). The proposed EPO program should have an appropriate intellectual linkage to the science and/or technology of the parent research proposal selected in Stage 1 and/or to the science goals of the Chandra mission (for more information, see Evaluation Guidelines V. 3.0, FAQ 9). The primary goal of the Chandra mission is the investigation of the nature and physics of astronomical objects as revealed through their X-ray emission. This supplemental CfP offers the opportunity for the submission of three types of EPO proposals.

     4

    Cycle 11 Supplemental Call for Education and Public Outreach Proposals

Types of EPO Proposals:

    1. Proposals for EPO programs from individual Chandra researchers: Grants up

    to $15k;

    2. Institutional proposals allowing an individual or several CXC-funded Chandra

    researchers located at a single institution to plan and carry out a more

    ambitious program: Grants of $15k per selected proposal or researcher up to

    $50k for more than 3 collaborators;

    3. Team proposals allowing several CXC-funded Chandra researchers located

    at different institutions to collectively plan and carry out a more ambitious

    program: Grants of $15k per researcher up to $50k for more than 3

    collaborators.

    The total amount of funding for the support of Chandra EPO grants represents about 2% of the currently available Chandra Cycle 10 grants budget. 1.1.5 Cancellation of the CfP

    The CXC reserves the right to make no awards under this CfP and to cancel this CfP. The CXC, the Smithsonian Institution, and NASA assume no liability for canceling the CfP or for anyone's failure to receive notification of this cancellation.

     1.2 What's New in Cycle 11

    1.2.1 What's New in NASA's Education Program

    1.2.1.1 NASA’s Education Strategic Framework

    NASA’s overall education program was revised in 2006 to focus on the three goals cited in 1.1.1 above. Reacting to the National Academy’s May 2005 report,

    Rising Above the Gathering Storm, NASA developed an Education Strategic

    Coordination Framework, which can be accessed at

    http://education.nasa.gov/about/stratYThis is the lastegy/index.html. Although

    this framework has been in existence for about 3 years, those who have not interacted with EPO or proposed for an EPO grant in the last few years will need to familiarize with this material. A newly expanded summary is included in the revised SMD EPOESS Guide, V 1.0 (Feb. 2009, see below). The framework

    outlines the overall goals, and the relationships among the various target audience and categories of education and public outreach programs carried out by NASA and its missions. The information in this document should be useful in helping to define the type of activity that a PI may wish to propose, and in understanding how to align potential programs with respect to the goals of the overall NASA education effort.

    1.2.1.2 Revised Explanatory Guide

    On the NASA science web site for Researchers there are now 5 versions of the guides for proposal evaluation factors. This CfP references the SMD EPOESS

    Guide 1.0 dated Feb. 2009. This guide is used in preparing EPO proposals for

     5

    Cycle 11 Supplemental Call for Education and Public Outreach Proposals

ROSES and is based on Version 3.0, April 2008 of the Explanatory Guide to

    SMD E/PO Evaluation Factors with which previous Chandra and ROSES

    proposers will be familiar. The new version of the Guide provides further

    definition and clarification of many aspects of the evaluation criteria and should be read carefully. In addition to the previous elimination of the

    broker/facilitators, the roles of the NASA Forums are being reconfigured in the time frame during which the proposals responding to this CXC CfP will be written. Therefore, PIs having questions or needing information about resources for EPO proposals should contact the EPO Coordinator at the CXC. The Explanatory

    Guide is written to cover all ROSES education proposal opportunities, from larger, multi-year projects through small EPO grant programs. Therefore, not all sections and discussions apply to the Chandra Cycle 11 CfP. Questions about applicability of guidelines to this CfP should be directed to the CXC EPO Coordinator at 617-495-7399, klestition@cfa.harvard.edu.

    This document is available from the Chandra EPO Proposal page

    (http://chandra.harvard.edu/edu/proposals/epo.html) and by following the link

    at http://nasascience.nasa.gov/researchers/education-public-outreach/

1.2.2 What's New in Chandra Cycle 11

    1.2.2.1 Expanded Eligibility

    In Cycle 10 we expanded eligibility to assume the role of PI on an EPO proposal to encompass any Co-I on the eligible science research proposal, with the approval of the proposal’s PI. In any such case where a US-based PI decides

    not submit a supplementary EPO proposal, that eligibility, limited to one EPO submission per selected science research proposal, may be passed to a Co-I on the proposal. The PI must provide a short statement to be attached to the EPO proposal affirming that EPO eligibility for the science proposal of which he/she is PI is ceded to the named Co-I. We require that the Co-I be substantially involved in the science research proposal. Eligibility is also extended to US budget PI’s on foreign proposals where the foreign-based PI is not eligible to

    submit, and to US budget PI’s of US-based proposals where institutional rules

    may prevent a more junior team member from being named PI of the science or EPO proposal. In the latter cases, the submitting PI should provide a short statement of explanation to be attached to the proposal. The intent of these changes is to facilitate EPO proposal submission from the broadest segment of interested scientists affiliated with selected science research proposals. If the above description does not accommodate the circumstances of your unique situation, please contact the CXC EPO Coordinator (see Sec. 7.2). 1.2.2.2 Self-Partnering

    We will allow a PI who has had more than one science proposal selected to accumulate each EPO opportunity for which he/she is eligible toward one larger proposal which they can submit as the sole PI. As with institutional and partnership proposals, this single proposal will be limited to a maximum of 4 self-

     6

    Cycle 11 Supplemental Call for Education and Public Outreach Proposals

partnerships and a dollar total of $50K.

    1.2.3 Reiteration of Key Changes from Cycle 9

    1.2.3.1 Direct funding of Education Partners or Co-Is

    We are able to offer direct funding of education partners and Co-Is, eliminating the added layer of overhead tax. This requires the education partner or Co-I to prepare a separate budget for their portion of the funding. That budget, along with a signed institutional cover sheet, must be submitted to the PI for inclusion with the PI’s electronic and hardcopy proposal submission. The optional partner/Co-I budget form is included with the proposal form. It is the responsibility of the EPO proposal PI to provide this form to relevant members of his/her proposal team. Note that direct funded Education Partners or Co-Is are required to submit both annual and final program progress reports consisting of a brief description of their contribution to the project or a list of tasks completed during the reporting period.

    2. Proposal Submission Policies

    2.1 Who May Propose

    Participation in this supplemental education grant program is open only to U.S. based Principal Investigators and Co-Is (see 1.2.2 above) whose scientific Chandra proposal has been selected in Stage 1. Non-U.S. Investigators are not eligible to submit a supplemental EPO proposal. EPO funding may not be requested for projects or activities taking place in non-U.S. venues or addressing non-U.S. audiences, or for expenditures supporting non-U.S. recipients. The U.S. is defined as the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

    Each individual EPO proposal must have one, and only one, Principal Investigator (PI). Each institutional or team EPO proposal must designate one, and only one, PI as the Lead for the proposal. The PI is responsible for the programmatic and administrative conduct of the project, and is the formal contact for all communications with the CXC. Questions or issues about the proposal submission will be directed to the PI. The PI may designate an EPO Co-I who will be copied on any communications.

    An eligible PI or Co-I may submit a separate EPO proposal for each of his/her science proposals accepted in Stage 1. A PI/Co-I may submit individual proposals, join an institutional or team proposal, or divide proposal opportunities among the three . A PI may use multiple accepted science proposals to partner with him or herself on an institutional proposal. For more than one EPO proposal from a given PI to be accepted for funding, the proposals must be for different programs or activities.

    2.2 Proposal Confidentiality

    Proposals submitted to the SAO will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by the review process. For proposals that are selected to receive funding, an abstract, and names and contact information for key participants (e.g. PI, EPO

     7

    Cycle 11 Supplemental Call for Education and Public Outreach Proposals

    Co-I, and any education partners) will become publicly accessible. 2.3 Proposal Submission

    EPO proposals must be submitted both electronically, to the Chandra proposal site, and as hardcopy. The proposal form is available on-line as a downloadable Word document from the EPO Proposer page, accessed from

    http://cxc.harvard.edu and or directly at

    http://chandra.harvard.edu/edu/proposals/.

    The completed proposal, a Word document with optional attachments, will be uploaded to the secure proposal submission site accessed from the EPO proposer page. The PI will be sent an automated confirmation that the electronic copies of the submissions have been received.

    In addition to the electronic submission of the EPO proposal, an original

    hardcopy of the proposal with authorized institutional signature, and seven (7)

    additional copies, must be received by the SAO Subawards Section by 4 p.m. EDT on 28 October 2009. Supporting documents not existing in electronic format or too large to upload may be attached to the hardcopy. Letters of support without electronic signature must also be attached to the hardcopy. Letters may contain significant detail about the roles of the education partner(s) and are not limited to one page.

    Other supporting, impact or evaluation information that cannot be entered into the proposal form may be attached. If you have questions or concerns about the appropriateness of material that you wish to attach either electronically or in hard copy, please call the CXC EPO Coordinator (see section 7.2).

    Both the electronic and hard copy of the proposal must be identical in terms of the material entered into the proposal software. If they are not identical, the proposal will be deemed to be non-responsive.

    Late Proposals will not be considered. We recommend submission well before the deadline to avoid possible last minute problems.

    Hardcopies should be submitted to:

    Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

    Subawards Section

    100 Acorn Park Drive, MS 22

    Cambridge, MA 02140-2301

    3. Chandra Cycle 11 EPO Proposal Guidelines

    3.1 Applicable General Policies, Guidelines and Procedures

    3.1.1 Key NASA Policy and Guideline Documents

    The key documents that establish the basic policies and guidance for all EPO activities funded by SMD are:

    (1) “Partners in Education: A Strategy for Integrating Education and Public

     8

    Cycle 11 Supplemental Call for Education and Public Outreach Proposals

Outreach into NASA's Space Science Programs", March 1995)

    (2) "Implementing the Office of Space Science (OSS) Education/Public Outreach Strategy", October 1996)

    (3) NASA Education Strategic Coordination Framework: A Portfolio Approach

    (2006)

    (4) Explanatory Guide to Proposal Evaluation Factors for ROSES Program Element: Opportunities in Education & Public Outreach for Earth and Space Science (EPOESS) Version 1.0, February 2009

    These documents may be obtained on-line at

    http://science.hq.nasa.gov/research/epo.htm.

    Additionally, the Strategic Framework may be accessed at

    http://education.nasa.gov/about/strategy/index.html and the Explanatory Guide is

    available from the EPO proposer page at http://cxc.harvard.edu.

    3.1.2 The following overall policies and guidelines apply to the EPO activities proposed for supplemental funding to a Chandra research grant: The proposed EPO activity is expected to have an appropriate intellectual

    linkage to the science objectives of the research proposal and/or the science

    expertise of its PI and/or the science goals of the Chandra mission. Programs of educational or public information merit that could by the nature of

    their content be funded by other agencies may be declined for funding. Programs are expected to include significant NASA/SMD science, math,

    engineering, and/or technology (STEM) content.

     EPO programs funded through SMD are required to make a valuable

    contribution to education, to public outreach to enhance public understanding

    of science, and/or to enhance participation of underserved/underutilized

    groups and women in science that is consistent with NASA education and

    public outreach goals and objectives.

     NASA requests (but does not require) that the submitting organization waive

    PI labor costs and its customary overhead charges on an EPO budget, since

    in many cases such activities will directly aid a local educational or public

    science institution, and the budget available for this EPO program is

    extremely limited.

     The EPO PI must show direct involvement in planning, implementing,

    oversight, and execution of the proposed EPO program or activity. In the case

    of institutional or team proposals, it is expected that more than one science

    team member will be involved at a level appropriate to their expertise. This

    guideline is also meant to preclude proposals that serve only to "pass

    through" money to an external organization or individual who would then carry

    out the proposed EPO activity. Such a situation is inconsistent with the

    intention of SMD that the research community be actively involved in

    education and public outreach.

     9

    Cycle 11 Supplemental Call for Education and Public Outreach Proposals

     Although the PI or a Co-I of the parent research proposal must be designated

    as the PI of the supplemental EPO proposal, and must maintain involvement

    with the proposal program or activity as described above, an additional

    qualified person may be identified as the EPO Co-I. This person may be

    assigned primary responsibility for developing and/or conducting the EPO

    activities. The EPO Co-I might be, for example, an appropriately qualified

    colleague from the PI's science team, or institution, or from a partnering

    educational or science outreach institution.

     Active involvement of appropriate and qualified education or outreach

    partners is required. Given the smaller funding scale of these supplemental

    grants, EPO partners can make significant contributions to a proposed

    program.

     Education programs, activities and products should be developed for grades

    K-12, or for general science or introductory classes at the Gr. 13-14 level, or

    for community college or pre-service teachers. While programs may involve

    other students in higher education in the development or conduct of the

    activity, programs targeted at the education of undergraduate astronomy

    majors, science graduate students or post docs will not be considered under

    this CfP.

     Proposals for EPO supplements to research grants will be reviewed by a

    panel of qualified science, outreach, and education professionals in

    accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined below (see Section 3.2). The

    substance of these reviews will be conveyed to the proposers in a summary

    report.

    3.2 EPO Evaluation Criteria

    The revised SMD EPO evaluation criteria as elaborated in the Explanatory Guide,

    (V. 1.0, February 2009) are implemented for this Cycle 11 CfP.

    Proposals will be evaluated first in three areas: 1) Intrinsic Merit; 2) Relevance to NASA's Objectives; and 3) Cost. The failure of a proposal to be rated highly

    in any one of these elements is sufficient to cause the EPO proposal to be declined. In terms of overall assessment, Intrinsic Merit and Relevance are equally weighted and are valued at approximately twice that of Cost. A fourth area, the Program Balance Factors of Pipeline and Diversity, will be used in selecting among EPO proposals of essentially equivalent overall rating based on the three factors listed above. Although creativity and innovation are valued, note that none of these criteria attempt to judge the originality of the proposed effort. Each category is further described below. Additional details are available in the SMD Evaluation Guide.

    3.2.1 Intrinsic Merit

    The category Intrinsic Merit will be evaluated against the following four sub-factors:

     10

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com