84.334A - Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP)

Overview:

The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal
year (FY) 2024 for the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) Partnership Grants, Assistance Listing Number 84.334A. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1840–0821, application for GEAR UP Partnership Grants.

Purpose of Program: The GEAR UP program is a discretionary grant program that encourages eligible entities to provide support, and maintain a commitment, to eligible students from low-income backgrounds, including students with disabilities, to assist the students in obtaining a secondary school diploma (or its recognized equivalent) and to prepare for and succeed in postsecondary education. Under the GEAR UP program, the Department awards grants to two types of entities: (1) States and (2) Partnerships consisting of at least one degree-granting institution of higher education (IHE) and at least one local educational agency (LEA).

• Competitive Preference Priority 1— Increasing Postsecondary Education Access, Affordability, Completion, and Post-Enrollment Success (up to 5 points). Projects that are designed to increase postsecondary access, affordability, completion, and success for underserved students by establishing a system of high-quality data collection and analysis, such as data on persistence, retention, completion, and post-college outcomes, for transparency, accountability, and institutional improvement. 
• Competitive Preference Priority 2— Meeting Student Social, Emotional, and Academic Needs (up to 5 points). Projects that are designed to improve students’ social, emotional, academic, and career development, with a focus on underserved students, through creating education or work-based settings that are supportive, positive, identity-safe and inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status, through developing trusting relationships between students (including underserved students), educators, families, and community partners. 
• Competitive Preference Priority 3— Moderate Evidence (3 points). Applications supported by evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of ‘‘moderate evidence’’ (as defined in this notice). Note: To address the priority, an applicant may submit up to two study citations that it believes supports the implementation of a GEAR UP authorized activity proposed in the application and that meet the moderate evidence standard. For Partnership grantees, required GEAR UP services are specified in section 404D(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070a–24(a)), and permissible services are specified in section 404D(b) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070a–24(b)).

Applicants can cite What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) intervention reports, WWC practice guides, or individual studies—both those already listed in the Department’s WWC Database of Individual Studies1and those that have not yet been reviewed by the WWC. The proposed studies must be cited in the section of the application that addresses Competitive Preference Priority 3 as well as on the Evidence Form. Applicants should also describe (1) the project component(s) from the cited research they intend to implement in their GEAR UP project, (2) the relevant outcome(s) that are included in both the study (or WWC practice guide or intervention report) and in the proposed project, (3) the research findings suggesting a favorable relationship between the project component and the relevant outcome, and (4) how the population and/or settings in the cited research overlap with that of the proposed project. The Department will review the research cited by the applicant to determine if it meets the requirements for moderate evidence, as well as whether it is sufficiently aligned with the project proposed.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,200,000.

Maximum Award: We will not fund any application for a Partnership grant above the maximum award of $800 per student for a single budget period of 12 months. Additionally, no funding will be awarded for increases in years two through seven.

Estimated Number of Awards: 34. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Either 72 months or 84 months.

Note: An applicant that wishes to seek funding for a seventh project year (i.e., for a project period greater than 72 months), in order to provide project services to GEAR UP students through their first year of attendance at an IHE, must propose to do so in its application.

Applications Available: March 8, 2024.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 7, 2024.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 8, 2024.

Solicitation limitations:

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: Section 404C(b)(1) of the HEA requires grantees under this program to provide from State, local, institutional, or private funds, not less than 50 percent of the cost of the program (or one dollar of non-Federal funds for every one dollar of Federal funds awarded), which may be provided in cash or in-kind. The provision also specifies that the match may be accrued over the full duration of the grant award period, except that the grantee must make substantial progress towards meeting the matching requirement in each year of the grant award period. Section 404C(c) of the HEA provides that in-kind contributions may include (1) the amount of the financial assistance obligated under GEAR UP to students from State, local, institutional, or private funds, (2) the amount of tuition, fees, room or board waived or reduced for recipients of financial assistance under GEAR UP, (3) the amount expended on documented, targeted, long-term mentoring and counseling provided by volunteers or paid staff of non-school organizations, including businesses, religious organizations, community groups, postsecondary educational institutions, nonprofit and philanthropic organizations, and other organizations, and (4) equipment and supplies, cash contributions from non-Federal sources, transportation expenses, in-kind or discounted program services, indirect costs, and facility usage. Section 404C(b)(2) further provides that the Secretary may approve a Partnership’s request for a reduced match percentage at the time of application if the Partnership demonstrates significant economic hardship that precludes the Partnership from meeting the matching requirement, or if the Partnership requests that contributions to the scholarship fund, if applicable, be matched on the basis of two non-Federal dollars for every one Federal dollar of GEAR UP funds. GEAR UP program regulations in 34 CFR 694.8(a)–(c) address the content of an applicant’s request for such a reduced match, and the maximum percentage match that the Secretary may waive. In addition, the Secretary may approve a reduction in match of up to 70 percent upon request from a Partnership that (a) includes three or fewer IHEs as members (b) has a fiscal agent identified in 34 CFR 694.8(d)(1), and (c) serves students in schools and LEAs that meet the poverty criteria identified in 34 CFR 694.8(d)(2) and (3). 

Given the importance of matching funds to the long-term success of the project, eligible entities must describe how they will meet the matching requirement and sources of matching funds, as required by General Application Requirements (b) and (j). Grantees must include a budget detailing the source of the matching funds and must provide an outline of the types of matching contributions for at least the first year of the grant in their grant applications. Consistent with 2 CFR 200.306(b), any matching funds must be an allowable use of funds consistent with the GEAR UP program requirements and the cost principles detailed in subpart E of 2 CFR part 200, and not included as a contribution for any other Federal award.

b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This competition involves supplement, not supplant funding requirements. Under section 404B(e) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070a–22(e)), grant funds awarded under this program must be used to supplement, and not supplant, other Federal, State, and local funds that would otherwise be expended to carry out activities assisted under this program. c. Indirect Cost Rate Information: For projects that designate an LEA as the fiscal agent, the GEAR UP program regulations at 34 CFR 694.11 limit indirect cost reimbursement to the restricted rate established by the LEA’s negotiated indirect cost rate agreement or eight percent of a modified total direct cost base, whichever amount is less. For projects that designate an IHE as the fiscal agent, the GEAR UP program uses a training indirect cost rate. This rate limits indirect cost reimbursement to an entity’s actual indirect costs, as determined in its negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, or eight percent of a modified total direct cost base, whichever amount is less. For more information regarding training indirect cost rates, see 34 CFR 75.562. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/ intro.html. 

Research Grants on Education: Large

Overview:

The Large Research Grants on Education Program supports education research projects that will contribute to the improvement of education, broadly conceived, with budgets ranging from $125,000 up through $500,000 for projects ranging from one to five years. We accept applications twice a year. 

This program is “field-initiated,” meaning that proposal submissions are not in response to a specific request for a particular research topic, discipline, design, or method. Our goal for this program is to support rigorous, intellectually ambitious and technically sound research that is relevant to the most pressing questions and compelling opportunities in education. We seek to support scholarship that develops new foundational knowledge that may have a lasting impact on educational discourse. 

We recognize that learning occurs across the life course as well as across settings— from the classroom to the workplace, to family and community contexts and even onto the playing field—any of which may, in the right circumstance, provide the basis for rewarding study that makes significant contributions to the field. We value work that fosters creative and open-minded scholarship, engages in deep inquiry, and examines robust questions related to education. To this end, this program supports proposals from multiple disciplinary and methodological perspectives, both domestically and internationally, from scholars at various stages in their career. We anticipate that proposals will span a wide range of topics and disciplines that innovatively investigate questions central to education, including for example education, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, sociology, law, economics, history, or neuroscience, amongst others.

Moreover, we expect and welcome methodological diversity in answering pressing questions; thus, we are open to projects that utilize a wide array of research methods including quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, ethnographies, design-based research, participatory methods, historical research, to name a few. We are open to projects that might incorporate data from multiple and varied sources, span a sufficient length of time as to achieve a depth of understanding, or work closely with practitioners or community members over the life of the project. In addition, we welcome proposals submitted by multidisciplinary and multigenerational teams who are positioned to both contribute to the project as well as contribute to the teaching and learning of fellow team members. 

Finally, we encourage teams to thoughtfully consider and describe plans regarding the trajectories of their project’s findings, implications, and potential effects, especially how the knowledge may be shared and utilized across the field in practice, policy making, or with broader publics.

Large Research Grant budget totals should be between $125,000 and $500,000, including up to 15% indirect cost charges. We anticipate funding proposals in the following funding tiers: $125,000 to 250,000; $250,001 to $375,000; and $375,001 to $500,000.

Note: You must complete an Intent to Apply form by noon on the deadline if you intend
to submit a Full Proposal for the upcoming review cycle.

Deadlines:
•  Applications Open: April 3, 2024
• Intent to Apply: May 22, 2024, 12:00 PM Noon (Central/USA Time)
• Full Proposal Deadline: June 18, 2024, 12:00 PM Noon (Central/USA Time)

Solicitation limitations:

Proposals to the Research Grants on Education program must be for academic research projects that aim to study education. Proposals for activities other than research are not eligible (e.g., program evaluations, professional development, curriculum development, scholarships, capital projects). Additionally, proposals for research studies focused on areas other than education, are not eligible.

Projects proposed may not be longer than 5 years in duration.

PIs and Co-PIs may only hold one active research grant from the Spencer Foundation at a time. (This restriction does not apply to the administering organization; organizations may submit as many proposals as they like as long as they are for different projects and have different research teams.)

PIs and Co-PIs may not submit more than one research proposal to the Spencer Foundation at a time. This restriction applies to the Small Grants Program, Large Grants Program, Racial Equity Research Grants Program, and Research-Practice Partnership Program. If the PI or any of the Co-PIs currently have a research proposal under consideration in any of these programs, they are required to wait until a final decision has been made on the pending proposal before they can submit a new proposal.

Computer Science for All (CSforAll: Research and RPPs)

Overview:

This program supports efforts that aim to provide opportunities for all students to participate in CS and CT learning at the pre-k, elementary, middle, and high school grade levels through research-practice partnerships (RPPs) that connect research to practice through long running and diverse collaborations. The program also supports traditional research that builds knowledge across educational pathways. Proposals are encouraged from teams in early stages of RPP formation, as well as advanced stages of RPP implementation. Proposals will be funded in four "strands" that collectively foster design, implementation at scale, and/or research:

• For the PreK-8 Strand, the focus is on designing, developing, and piloting instructional materials that integrate CS and/or CT into preK-8 classrooms.
• For the High School Strand, the focus is on preparing and supporting teachers to teach rigorous CS courses.
• For PreK-12 Pathways Strand, the focus is on designing pathways that support school districts in developing policies and supports for incorporating CS and/or CT across all grades and potentially the transition into introductory levels at community or four-year institutions of higher education and/or the workforce.
• For the Research Strand, the focus is on building strategically instrumental, or "high leverage" knowledge about the learning and teaching of introductory computer science to support key CS and/or CT understandings and abilities for all students.

Proposals in the PreK-8 Strand, High School Strand, and the Pathways Strand must involve RPPs, whereas proposals in the Research Strand are not subject to this requirement. A proposal can be submitted to only one strand, and that strand must be designated in the first line of the Project Summary.

To ensure that advances in computing education are inclusive of diverse student populations (the "for All" part of "CS for All"), proposals in any strand must address, in a significant manner, longstanding underrepresentation of many groups in computing relative to their participation in preK-12, postsecondary education, and the workforce (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315). All proposals will be evaluated on the two additional Broadening Participation Criteria specific to this solicitation (see Section V.A, Project Description, below).

B. CSforAll RPP strands
RPPs require well-organized teams of researchers, PreK-12 practitioners (teachers, administrators, and counselors), and potentially other community, foundation, policy, and industry partners. There are many ways RPP teams can work together; however, central to the partnership is shared participation in rigorous research about problems of practice by all team members. Members of these teams work together to iteratively define and refine common goals, research questions, metrics, and implementations. RPPs vary across several dimensions, such as their goals, the composition of participating partners, and the approaches to and uses of research. However, they share a set of principles 3:

• They are long-term collaborations;
• They work toward educational improvement or equitable transformation;
• They feature engagement of research with practice as a leading activity; and
• They are intentionally organized to bring together a diversity of expertise.

RPPs aim to strengthen the capacity of an organization to reliably produce valued CS and CT education outcomes for diverse groups of students. The focus is on building efforts that can succeed when implemented at scale. RPPs involve a range of stakeholders in different stages of inquiry, and research findings from the field are translated into practical use, just as practical challenges can motivate articulation of solutions and subsequent sharing of those with the field.

1. PreK-8 Strand. RPPs proposed in this strand may address a wide range of topics on the teaching and learning of CS and CT in PreK-8 grades, including but not limited to:

• development and study of prototype instructional materials for PreK-8 both for stand-alone CS and CT courses or modules as well as teaching and testing of CS and CT concepts with other content;
• development of tools and models to support underrepresented students, including girls, in prekindergarten through elementary school in computer science education;
• creation of developmentally appropriate learning progressions that underlie the design of instructional materials;
• design of classroom-based assessments to inform teaching and learning along the way;
• development of professional development (PD) and teacher support — including face-to-face and online learning communities, coaching, and mentoring — as needed for piloting of instructional materials, along with research about their use and effectiveness;
• what and how teachers learn from professional development; and
• relationships between professional development activities and subsequent enactments of instruction.

RPPs focused on innovation in research and development of instructional materials for preK-8 are encouraged, and PIs should make a clear case that curricula and materials do not currently exist to address the teaching and learning of CS and CT in the relevant grade levels or cannot be adapted to those contexts. Strong proposals will document how the new curricula or instructional materials differ in significant ways from already available materials and tools.

2. High School Strand. As schools attempt to respond to the increasing demand for CS and CT in their curricula, they are often faced with a critical shortage of teachers. Proposals in this strand should address key issues in the preparation, professional development (PD), and ongoing support of teachers of high school CS, recognizing the need for quickly scaling effective efforts to reach teachers, many of whom have had little or no formal CS preparation. Additional issues include but are not limited to:

• recruitment of teachers;
• differential PD based on prior experiences;
• creating robust PD materials for teachers and facilitators;
• establishing online and hybrid PD approaches;
• assessing the effectiveness of PD models with respect to content knowledge, pedagogy, classroom equity, and student outcomes;
• adapting and scaling PD models for greater impact, especially with respect to inclusion and equity;
• establishing certification programs and pre-service paths for teacher PD;und
• ertaking studies to inform state or local policy about CS requirements; or
• designing, piloting and assessing scalable mechanisms for ongoing support of classroom teachers.

Whereas the focus of the High School Strand is RPPs conducting implementation and improvement research on teacher preparation and support, it is possible within a project to adapt or enhance instructional materials for high school students. PIs are encouraged to focus their RPPs on studying supports for teachers who are interested in using instructional materials that already have been developed and piloted and are now scaling nationally, such as Exploring Computer Science (ECS), curricula based on the Advanced Placement® (AP) Computer Science courses and exams, or Bootstrap, the curriculum for teaching mathematics and CS together. Proposals could develop and study curricula for integrating modules on artificial intelligence, machine learning, or data science into existing computer science courses.  Strong proposals will document the wide use of the proposed instructional materials with diverse students, include any available results about their effectiveness as part of the argument for focusing on the materials of choice, and will address how findings from the research will inform practitioners' choices about CS and/or CT materials.

3. PreK-12 Pathways Strand. Many districts have begun to make progress at the elementary, middle, and high school levels but need to coordinate the overall efforts, particularly to address articulation across the years of schooling. RPPs proposed in this strand may address the creation of pathways, including but not limited to:

• research and development of course sequences and alignment tools for students for PreK-12 Pathways at the school or district level;
• research and development of articulation from preK-12 Pathways to community or four-year colleges or universities in preparation for entry into CS or computationally intensive majors; or
• design and development of school, district, and/or state systems to assess and track student progress on pathways.

High-quality proposals in any of the above three RPP strands will:

• delineate clearly the CS/CT content to be taught;
• address working with communities that support the full spectrum of diverse computing talent, including the participation of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented or under-served in computing; demonstrating knowledge of the relevant literature on working with the identified communities, and providing concrete plans of action and clear metrics for documenting outcomes4;
• document the extent to which the approach has already scaled and its potential for further scaling;
• specify jointly-developed research questions and document the investment of the partners in those questions;
• provide work plans for implementation, improvement, data collection, analysis, and use; and
• draw from RPP literature on assessing/evaluating the quality of the partnership to articulate plans for assessing the success of the work of the RPP.

Projects in the RPP Strands above should provide research results or findings on one or more of the following:

• strategies for improvement or implementation that address a shared goal of the researcher/practitioner collaborators;
• conceptual frameworks that address issues of scale, human capacity, and technical support for implementation and improvement in educational systems;
• measures of organizational learning that assess the progress of implementation and improvement;
• sustainable communities that can support implementation and improvement in the identified educational system; and/or
• documented practices with an ongoing forum for continued engagement of collaborators from various levels of the educational system.

C. CSforAll Research Strand
The aim of the Research Strand is to support the development of evidence-based knowledge that illuminates how the teaching and learning of computing best occurs and how it can be supported most effectively for diverse students under different circumstances. Like the above three RPP strands, the Research Strand prioritizes a clear relationship between research and practice.

The Research Strand aims to enrich the knowledge base governing how students build on what and how they learn computing throughout their education pathway. Strong Research Strand proposals will support the participation of the full spectrum of diverse computing talent, including groups that have been traditionally underrepresented or under-served in computing relative to their participation in preK-14 education, with the research findings potentially contributing to the preparation of the future CS workforce (for national data, see: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315). Proposals should synthesize or demonstrate knowledge of the relevant literature that pertains to roots of underrepresentation, have a plan that explores ways of improving representation, and have clear metrics and methodologies for documenting outcomes that would test and inform that plan.

Areas of research should be considered broadly and can include but are not limited to: How students learn computer science or computational thinking as a literacy like reading and writing; How computational thinking can be supported and what developmental trajectories for CT look like; How computing competencies are learned in contexts of STEM disciplines; longitudinal impacts of computing education experiences in K-14, especially given advances like AI; How computational thinking development can be framed in ways that invite, value, and build on students' diverse cultural and linguistic resources; and What educators need to know and how they learn instructional abilities.

Strong proposals will bring to bear research expertise, approaches, and tools from scholarship on learning from other domains as appropriate, including but not limited to cognitive science, learning sciences, STEM education, social studies education, and ethics education.

D. CSforAll proposal size classes
The proposal size class should be specified in the first line of the Project Summary. Proposals in the three RPP strands may be submitted in the following size classes:

• Small RPP proposals (maximum of $300,000 for up to 2 years, plus funds for embedded Research Experiences for Undergraduates supplements) are designed to support initial steps in building a strong and well-integrated RPP team that could successfully compete for a Medium or Large proposal. These initial steps could include: establishing partnerships, exploratory research, and/or pilot implementation programs.
• Medium RPP proposals (maximum of $1,000,000 for up to 3 years, plus funds for embedded Research Experiences for Undergraduates supplements) are designed to support promising approaches and feasibility studies by a well-defined RPP team.
• Large RPP proposals (maximum of $2,000,000 for up to 4 years, plus funds for embedded Research Experiences for Undergraduates supplements) are designed to support the scaling of an evidence-based approach and implementation studies by an established RPP team that has demonstrated sustainability.

Research Strand proposals (maximum of $750,000 for up to 3 years, plus funds for embedded Research Experiences for Undergraduates supplements) are designed to support research projects that will contribute to the development of an evidence-informed knowledge base that illuminates how learning in the domain of computer science best occurs and how it can be supported most effectively for diverse students under different circumstances. As above, "Research Strand" should be specified in the first line of the Project Summary.

Estimated Number of Awards: 27
Approximately 12-13 small Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs), 6 medium RPPs, 3 large RPPs, and 4-5 Research strand awards.
Anticipated Funding Amount: $20,000,000

Solicitation limitations:

Proposals that do not comply with the requirements noted below by RWR will be returned without review. (RWR) All proposals must address evaluation plans.

(RWR) For Small RPP projects: The budget shown on the cover page and on the budget sheets must not exceed two years or $300,000, plus funds for embedded REU (Research Experiences for Undergraduates) supplements.

(RWR) For Medium RPP projects: The budget shown on the cover page and on the budget sheets must not exceed three years or $1,000,000, plus funds for embedded REU supplements.

(RWR) For Large RPP projects: The budget shown on the cover page and on the budget sheets must not exceed four years or $2,000,000, plus funds for embedded REU supplements.

(RWR) For Research projects: The budget shown on the cover page and on the budget sheets must not exceed three years or $750,000, plus funds for embedded REU supplements

Racial Equity Research Grants

Overview:

The Racial Equity Research Grants program supports education research projects that will contribute to understanding and ameliorating racial inequality in education. We are interested in funding studies that aim to understand and disrupt the reproduction and deepening of inequality in education, and which seek to (re)imagine and make new forms of equitable education. Thus, we are interested in research projects that seek to envision educational opportunities in a multiplicity of education systems, levels, settings, and developmental ranges and that reach beyond documenting conditions and paradigms that contribute to persistent racial inequalities.

Our goal for this program is to support rigorous, intellectually ambitious, and technically sound research that is relevant to the most pressing questions and compelling opportunities in relation to racial equity in education. In this cycle of funding, we will continue to fund scholarship focused on a range of communities and issues with respect to equity. We encourage proposals from across the methodological spectrum, including qualitative methods, mixed-methods, and quantitative methods. We want to especially encourage Racial Equity proposals that focus on the following areas: (1) innovative forms of measurement and assessment, (2) artificial intelligence (AI), and (3) current political challenges in k-12 and higher education around diversity, equity, and inclusion.

As with other Spencer grant programs, this program is “field-initiated” in that proposal submissions are not required to be developed around a particular research topic, discipline, design, method, or geographic location.

Proposed  budgets  for  this  program  are  limited  to  $75,000  total  and  may  not include  indirect  cost  charges  per  Spencer’s  policy.
Projects  proposed  may  not  be  longer  than  5  years  in  duration.

Applications Open: March 18, 2024
Intent to Apply Form Deadline: May 29, 2024, 12:00 PM Noon (Central/Chicago Time)
Full Proposal Deadline: June 27, 2024, 12:00 PM Noon (Central/Chicago Time)

Solicitation limitations:

PIs and Co-PIs may not submit more than one application for a given deadline in this program.  Additionally, PIs or Co-PIs cannot have two projects under review in different programs.

Proposals to the Racial Equity Research Grants program must be for academic research projects that will contribute to understanding and ameliorating racial inequality in education, broadly conceived. Proposals for activities other than research are not eligible (e.g., program evaluations, professional development, curriculum development, scholarships, capital projects). Additionally, proposals for research studies focused on areas other than education are not eligible.

Principal Investigators (PIs) and Co-PIs applying for a Racial Equity Research Grant must have an earned doctorate in an academic discipline or professional field, or appropriate experience in an education research-related profession. While graduate students may be part of the research team, they may not be named the PI or Co-PI on the proposal.

The PI must be affiliated with a non-profit organization or public/governmental institution that is willing to serve as the administering organization if the grant is awarded. The Spencer Foundation does not award grants directly to individuals. Examples include non-profit or public colleges, universities, school districts, and research facilities, as well as other non-profit organizations with a 501(c)(3) determination from the IRS (or equivalent non-profit status if the organization is outside of the United States).

Proposals are accepted from the U.S. and internationally, however, all proposals must be submitted in English and budgets must be proposed in U.S. Dollars.

Stanley Smith Horticultural Trust Grants (LOI)

Overview:

The Stanley Smith Horticultural Trust supports education and research in ornamental horticulture through grants to botanical gardens, arboreta, universities, and other charitable organizations strongly-aligned with its funding interests.

The Trust welcomes Letters of Inquiry (LOI) from eligible organizations seeking funding for projects that meet its Funding Interests in research and education in ornamental horticulture. 

Funding Interests:
Research -- The advancement of research in ornamental horticulture and the publication of the results of such research. 
Examples include: 
    • trial/evaluation gardens for horticultural potential of selected plants in a region
    • discerning appropriate cultural techniques and best horticultural practices for a specific group of plants
    • laboratory freezer for DNA samples

Public Gardens -- Assisting in the creation, development, preservation, and maintenance of gardens accessible to the public for educational purposes related to ornamental horticulture.
Examples include: 
    • new or revised home demonstration gardens or beds
    • resurfacing garden trails for all-weather accessibility or ADA compliance
    • damage remediation following a natural disaster

Ornamental Plants -- Promotion of the environmentally responsible introduction, cultivation, and distribution of plants which have ornamental horticultural value. 
Examples include: 
    • testing potential new ornamentals for invasiveness
    • promotion and demonstration of the use of local native ornamentals in local or home landscaping
    • collections management software for ornamentals

Publications -- Assisting in the publication of books or other works relating to ornamental horticulture. 
Examples include: 
    • guide to appropriate ornamentals for local and regional landscaping
    • guide to best practices for controlling diseases and pests in ornamentals
    • online publication of horticultural inventory for public access

Education -- Informal and/or formal educational activities that further ornamental horticulture. 
Examples include: 
    • classes and workshops on developing and maintaining home gardens
    • garden signage that notes cultural requirements, water- or fire-wise properties, or aesthetic attributes of plants
    • horticultural internships
    • construction or remodeling of educational facilities

The Trust supports projects and activities in: 
    • North America
    • South America
    • Central America
    • the Caribbean
    • Australia
    • New Zealand

The maximum grant awarded by the Trust is $25,000, however, grants normally do not exceed $20,000.

The grant period during which funds should be used is the calendar year. For example, for grants awarded in November 2024, the grant period will be January 1 to December 31, 2025. It is expected that funds will be spent during this year.

Letter of Intent (LOI) Deadline: Friday, June 14, 2024
Funding Organization's Full Proposal Deadline: Monday, July 15, 2024

Solicitation limitations:

ASU may submit only one (1) LOI to the sponsoring organization. Apply to ASU's internal limited submission competition on InfoReady at: https://asu.infoready4.com/#competitionDetail/1932896

Organizations may receive a grant from the Trust no more than every other year.

Humanities Initiatives at Hispanic-Serving Institutions

Overview:

The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Division of Education Programs is accepting applications for the five Humanities Initiatives programs. These programs strengthen the teaching and study of the humanities at institutions of higher education by developing new or enhancing existing programs, resources (including those in digital format), or courses that explore, interpret, and preserve the diversity of human cultures, ideas, and practices, past and present.

Program Outcomes and Outputs 
The outputs of a successful Humanities Initiatives award may include, but are not limited to: 
• New or revised courses, programs, or curriculums
• Teaching materials
• Humanities-based internship or experiential-learning programs
• Faculty development programs
• Partnerships with school districts, institutions of higher education, and/or community 
organizations

Hispanic-Serving Institutions are rapidly expanding part of the American education system, and they serve students with rich and varied backgrounds and identities. Humanities Initiatives grants can help strengthen the teaching and study of the humanities at Hispanic-Serving Institutions by supporting the development of new or enhancement of existing programs, educational resources, or courses that explore, interpret, and preserve the diversity of human cultures, ideas, and practices, past and present.

Past recipients have developed instructional modules to integrate local history and culture into the humanities curriculum; laid the groundwork for a minor in interdisciplinary Latino and Latin American Studies; and explored border culture through curriculum development, writing skills, and a public dialogue program. 

By supporting projects like these, Humanities Initiatives at HSIs grants can help institutions better serve current students and position themselves to build on success for the future.

NEH welcomes applications for projects that are modest in scope, duration, and budget, as well as applications for expansive, long-term projects.

Federal Assistance Listing Number (ALN): 45.162

Period of Performance: One to three years.
Projects must start between February 1, 2025, and September 1, 2025

Optional Draft Review: Submit your materials as attachments to hi@neh.gov by 11:59 pm Eastern on March 26, 2024 to receive feedback from NEH staff.  
Recorded Webinar: Available March 6, 2024.
Live Q&A: 2:00 pm Eastern on March 12, 2024.

William T. Grant Scholars Program

Overview:

The William T. Grant Scholars Program supports career development for promising early-career researchers. The program funds five-year research and mentoring plans that significantly expand researchers’ expertise in new disciplines, methods, and content areas. 

Applicants should have a track record of conducting high-quality research and an interest in pursuing a significant shift in their trajectories as researchers. We recognize that early-career researchers are rarely given incentives or support to take measured risks in their work, so this award includes a mentoring component, as well  as a supportive academic community.

The Foundation supports research in two distinct focus areas: 1) Reducing inequality in youth outcomes, and 2) Improving the use of research evidence by in policy and practice. Proposed research must address questions that align with one of these areas.

Focus Area: Reducing Inequality 
In this focus area, we fund research studies that aim to build, test, or increase understanding of programs, policies, or practices to reduce inequality in the academic, social, behavioral, or economic outcomes ofyoung people ages 5-25 in the United States, along dimensions of race, ethnicity, economic standing, language minority status, or immigrant origins.

NOTE: While we value research on the causes and consequences of inequality, we do not fund this work. Instead, we support research that informs or examines a policy, program, or practice response that can be implemented through an organization, institution, or system. 

Focus Area: Improving the Use of Research Evidence 
In this focus area, we fund research studies that advance theory and build empirical knowledge on ways to improve the use of research evidence by policymakers, agency leaders, organizational managers, intermediaries, and other decision-makers that shape youth-serving systems in the United States. 

While an extensive body of knowledge provides a rich understanding of specific conditions that foster the use of research evidence, we lack robust, validated strategies for cultivating them. What is required to create structural and social conditions that support research use? What infrastructure is needed, and what will it ook like? What supports and incentives foster research use? And, ultimately, how do youth outcomes fare when research evidence is used? This is where new research can make a difference.

Each Scholar receives exactly $350,000 over five years, including up to 7.5% indirect costs.
Awards begin July 1 of the award year and are made to the applicant’s institution. 

Mentor and Reference Letter Deadline: June 12, 2024
Application Deadline: July 3, 2024
Internal competition (InfoReady) link: https://asu.infoready4.com/#competitionDetail/1932870

Watch the 2022 webinar, “William T. Grant Scholars: An Overview of the Program and How to Apply http://wtgrantfoundation.org/webinar-william-t-grant-scholars-an-overview-of-the-program-and-how-to-apply

Solicitation limitations:

• Applicants must be nominated by their institutions. Major divisions of an institution (e.g., College of Arts and Sciences, Medical School) may nominate only one applicant each year. In addition to the eligibility criteria below, deans and directors of those divisions should refer to the Review Criteria to aid them in choosing their nominees. Applicants of any discipline are eligible.
• Applicants must have received their doctorate within seven years of submitting their application.
• The award may not be used as a post-doctoral fellowship.

Early Childhood Welfare, Early Childhood Education and Play, and Parenting Education

Overview:

The Caplan Foundation for Early Childhood is an incubator of promising research and development projects that appear likely to improve the welfare of young children, from infancy through 7 years, in the United States. Welfare is broadly defined to include physical and mental health, safety, nutrition, education, play, familial support, acculturation, societal integration and childcare.

Grants are only made if a successful project outcome will likely be of significant interest to other professionals, within the grantee’s field of endeavor, and would have a direct benefit and potential national application. The Foundation’s goal is to provide seed money to implement those imaginative proposals that exhibit the greatest chance of improving the lives of young children, on a national scale. Because of the Foundation’s limited funding capability, it seeks to maximize a grant's potential impact.

The Foundation provides funding in the following areas:
Early Childhood Welfare - Children can only reach their full potential when all aspects of their intellectual, emotional and physical development are optimally supported. Providing a safe and nurturing environment is essential as is imparting the skills of social living in a culturally diverse world. Therefore, the Foundation supports projects that seek to perfect child rearing practices and to identify models that can provide creative, caring environments in which all young children thrive.

Early Childhood Education and Play - Research shows that children need to be stimulated as well as nurtured, early in life, if they are to succeed in school, work and life. That preparation relates to every aspect of a child’s development, from birth to age seven, and everywhere a child learns – at home, in childcare settings and in preschool. We seek to improve the quality of both early childhood teaching and learning, through the development of innovative curricula and research based pedagogical standards, as well as the design of imaginative play materials and learning environments.

Parenting Education - To help parents create nurturing environments for their children, we support programs that teach parents about developmental psychology, cultural child rearing differences, pedagogy, issues of health, prenatal care and diet, as well as programs which provide both cognitive and emotional support to parents.

Furthermore, the Foundation will only fund grant applications that define measurable outcomes, include credible methods for documenting and assessing results, provide for financial accountability in the application of funds, and include detailed, prudent implementation budgets.

There are many proposals that we do not consider because they do not meet the criteria stated in our website. We strive to fund ideas that are adventurous, thoughtful and challenge the status quo. They should have a fresh concept (not rehash an older idea) and a defined method of implementation that promotes new approaches and understanding of early childhood and pushes the boundaries of academic, social and cultural studies and practices.

The Foundation employs a two-step grant application process that includes the submission of both a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) and a Full Proposal–the latter only by those applicants requested to do so. This ensures that consideration of Full Proposals is limited to those applications that strictly comply with the Foundation’s programmatic guidelines.

Once a Letter of Inquiry is received by the Foundation, the Directors will determine if the proposed program fits the Foundation’s funding guidelines. Successful applicants will be invited via email to submit Full Proposals.

Global Fund for Children - Partnerships

Overview:

At the core of our model are our partnerships with courageous, dynamic organizations that are improving the lives of children and youth in the heart of their own communities.

We eagerly look for new organizations to partner with across the globe, based on our regional strategies, and particularly when we launch and expand thematic and regional initiatives. Please explore information about our regional strategies and initiatives in Africa, the Americas, Europe and Eurasia, and Asia.

We are committed to selecting partners who align with our values and our mission, and who will leverage the greatest benefit from their partnership with GFC. We use the following eligibility criteria and selection guidelines to help us keep this commitment.

• Know their community and live or work in the areas they serve
• Aim to improve the lives of children and youth
• Embrace discovery, learning, and getting better at what they do
• Appreciate that they can’t make change alone and see themselves as part of a larger system
• Address any of our thematic focus areas of education, freedom from violence and exploitation, gender equity, or youth empowerment
• Have local nonprofit or charitable status and can accept international funds or have a fiscal sponsor that can
• Protect children and youth with a safeguarding policy or agree to implement one

Since we can only fund a small number of courageous groups around the world, we are especially interested in organizations with these characteristics:

• Their vision for change might affect all young people in their area, but they focus on children and youth who are excluded because of their race, gender, gender identity, social class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, national origin, where they live, or other factors
• Young people have founded or lead the organization or have important roles in it
• They are eager to measure the outcomes and impact of their work and excited to get better at it; they have already seen positive change from the work they do
• They look at old problems in new ways, take smart risks, and are creative and flexible to respond to change
• They understand the power of connections with many types of actors to make change and seek to grow their network
• They believe young people can influence decisions affecting their lives and should raise their voices and claim their rights
• They understand that advocacy is a powerful tool to change mindsets, norms, and policies and know what it means for them

If your organization is interested in being considered for future Global Fund for Children partner support, you may submit a brief organizational profile using this online form (https://globalfundforchildren.org/how-to-become-a-partner/organizational-profile-english/) at any time. Completing the form is quick and easy. Many of our current partners first introduced themselves to us this way. Please be aware that we will likely only contact you if and when we have funding that matches your organizational profile.

Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI Program)

Overview:

The goals of the HSI program are to enhance the quality of undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and to increase the recruitment, retention, and graduation rates of students pursuing associate's or baccalaureate degrees in STEM. Achieving these, given the diverse nature and context of the HSIs, requires additional strategies that support building capacity at HSIs through innovative approaches: to incentivize institutional and community transformation; and to promote fundamental research (i) on engaged student learning, (ii) about what it takes to diversify and increase participation in STEM effectively, and (iii) that improves our understanding of how to build institutional capacity at HSIs. Intended outcomes of the HSI Program include broadening participation of students that are historically underrepresented in STEM and expanding students’ pathways to continued STEM education and integration into the STEM workforce.

The HSI program accepts proposals in the following tracks:

Track 1:The Planning or Pilot Projects (PPP) track provides a funding opportunity for institutions that are new to NSF5 or are Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs6), including community colleges. The PPP has been designed to link with the other two tracks. The PPP track seeks to enhance undergraduate STEM education and build capacity at less-resourced institutions and to increase these institutions' ability to compete for NSF funding from other programs.

Planning projects in this track undertake the activities necessary to develop a future HSI program Track 2 or Track 3 proposal submission. Pilot projects in this track may be carried out to achieve a short-term, well-defined goal to enhance the availability of high-quality undergraduate STEM education at the HSI and gather preliminary data for future HSI program Track 2 or Track 3 proposals. Importantly, Pilot projects may also develop fundamental STEM education research capacity on student learning at HSIs, discovering effective means for diversifying and increasing participation in STEM. All PPP projects must include project evaluation and dissemination components.

Track 2: The Implementation and Evaluation Projects (IEP) track supports the implementation of evidence-based unit-, department-, or multi-department-level activities that will enhance the quality of undergraduate STEM education. All HSI institution types are encouraged to apply, especially PUIs (including community colleges). These projects may design and implement a new educational practice or practices, and/or adapt/replicate evidence-based practices that are already known to be effective.

IEP may conduct research that promotes one or more of the HSI program goals, including research on indicators of effective and successful undergraduate STEM education at HSIs. These projects must include both project evaluation and dissemination components, as well as an education research component. The IEP strategies are expected to be institutionalized and sustainable.

Track 3: The Institutional Transformation Projects (ITP) track supports institution-wide structural or systemic changes to enhance undergraduate STEM education at the proposing HSI. The ITP must be grounded in STEM education research and broadening participation research and be designed to make institutional infrastructure and policy changes to support long-term institutional changes that encourage and support faculty in implementing evidence-based practices that enhance student outcomes in STEM at the proposing HSI.

Under the ITP track, research (including foundational research) that improves our understanding of how to build HSI institutional capacity in STEM is encouraged. Such research should result in a strategic understanding about how the multiple components of the HSI program goals work synchronously to advance STEM education. All institution types are encouraged to apply, especially PUIs (including community colleges). Proposed activities can include adaptation of evidence-based strategies and/or the design and implementation of innovative strategies. The ITP must include both project evaluation and dissemination components, as well as an education research component. The ITP proposed structural or systemic changes are expected to be institutionalized and sustained by the HSI.

In addition to the core research of the proposed project, all tracks may support faculty research that is inter-, multi-, or trans-disciplinary, discipline-specific research, STEM education research, discipline-based STEM education research, or broadening participation research. Research may be based at their home institution, an NSF-funded research center, another institution of higher education, and/or a national laboratory. Fundamental research is particularly encouraged on engaged student learning at HSIs, and on effectively diversifying and increasing participation in STEM at HSIs. Research-related funds may be requested for undergraduate student research, supplies, equipment required to carry out the research, and faculty research development activities.

Proposed faculty research outside of the core research of the proposed project should support the overarching goals of the HSI program which seek to improve and enhance undergraduate STEM education, including undergraduate student research experiences. Proposed research should also explain how it will catalyze new faculty research activity in addition to supporting on-going faculty research activities as well as support opportunities to advance diverse students in STEM.

All projects must generate new knowledge through project evaluation activities and articulate a plan for dissemination of findings. Track 2 (IEP) and Track 3 (ITP) proposals must additionally generate new knowledge about how to improve access to and/or the quality of STEM education through a well-constructed STEM education research plan that is aligned with the project's goals. Additionally, under a specified heading, proposals must provide institutional data with a narrative explaining the institution's need for the project and its ability to enhance the quality of undergraduate STEM education.

Faculty Research Plans are no longer required as supplemental documents. However, faculty research outside of the core research of the project is still a supported activity in this program.
The Institutional Data Narrative is required and must be included as part of the Project Description with its own heading. It may not be submitted as a supplemental document.
Letters of Collaboration or Commitment are not required for Track 1 and Track 2 proposals, but they are strongly encouraged.

Solicitation limitations:

PPP track proposals will only be accepted from institutions new to NSF or Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs) including community colleges. For PUI certification, a representative of the institution submitting as a PUI proposal must sign a Certification of PUI Eligibility (see Section V below for the required template) to be included in the Supplementary Documentation section of the proposal.

Transformation Projects (ITP) track: One award and one submission per institution is allowed. Institutions with an active award are not eligible to apply to this track.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: An individual may be listed as PI on only one proposal and Co-PI on at most two proposals per submission period.