STEM, Education, Training

Institutionally Coordinated // Limit: 1 // PI: R. Deil-Amen ( College of Education)
 

UArizona may submit one proposal.

Through this solicitation, NSF seeks to foster a network of S-STEM stakeholders and further develop the infrastructure needed to generate and disseminate new knowledge, successful practices and effective design principles arising from NSF S-STEM projects nationwide. The ultimate vision of the legislation governing the S-STEM parent program[1] (and of the current S-STEM-Net solicitation) is that all Americans, regardless of economic status, should be able to contribute to the American innovation economy if they so desire.

To support collaboration within the S-STEM network, NSF will fund several S-STEM Research Hubs (S-STEM-Hub). The S-STEM Network (S-STEM-Net) will collaborate to create synergies and sustain a robust national ecosystem consisting of multi-sector partners supporting domestic low-income STEM students in achieving their career goals, while also ensuring access, inclusion, and adaptability to changing learning needs. The Hubs will investigate evolving barriers to the success of this student population. It will also disseminate the context and circumstances by which interventions and practices that support graduation of domestic low-income students (both undergraduate and graduate) pursuing careers in STEM are successful.

The target audience for this dissemination effort is the community of higher education institutions, faculty, scholars, researchers and evaluators, local and regional organizations, industry, and other nonprofit, federal, state, and local agencies concerned with the success of domestic low-income STEM students in the United States.

Limit: 1  // PI:  M. Romero-Ortega (Bioengineering)

One application per institution (normally identified by having a unique DUNS number or NIH IPF number) is allowed. This FOA seeks to support programs that include innovative approaches to enhance biomedical engineering (BME) designeducation to ensure a future workforce that can meet the nation’s needs in biomedical research and healthcare technologies.

Applications are encouraged from institutions that propose to establish new or to enhance existing team-based design courses orprograms in undergraduate biomedical engineering departments or other degree-granting programs with biomedical engineeringtracks/minors. This FOA targets the education of undergraduate biomedical engineering/bioengineering students in a team-basedenvironment. Health equity and universal design topics must be integrated throughout the educational activities. While current bestpractices such as multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary education, introduction to the regulatory pathway and other issues related tothe commercialization of medical devices, and clinical immersion remain encouraged components of a strong BME program, thisFOA also challenges institutions to propose other novel, innovative and/or ground-breaking activities that can form the basis of thenext generation of biomedical engineering design education.

Institutionally Coordinated // Limit: 2 //  PIs: 
Track 3 - Inter-institutional Consortia:
K. Ogden (Chemical and Environmental Engineering) 

Track 3 - Inter-institutional Consortia:
D.Glickenstein (Mathematics)

An institution may submit up to two proposals (either as a single institution or as a subawardee or a member of an inter-institutional consortia project (lead or co-lead) for a given S-STEM deadline. Multiple proposals from an institution must not overlap with regard to S-STEM eligible disciplines. See Additional Eligibility Information below for more details (see IV. Eligibility Information).

Institutions with a current S-STEM award should wait at least until the end of the third year of execution of their current award before submitting a new S-STEM proposal focused on students pursuing degrees in the same discipline(s).

The above restrictions do not apply to collaborative planning grant proposals.

The S-STEM program provides institutions of higher education (IHEs) with funds for scholarships to encourage and enable domestic low-income students with academic ability, talent or potential and demonstrated financial need to enter the US workforce following completion of associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degrees in S-STEM eligible disciplines. To enable social mobility of these students with academic talent, funds should be allocated to support scholars in areas of regional or national need. 

Description of Program Tracks

• Track 1 (Institutional Capacity Building)
  UA is not eligible to apply to Track 1, due to a previous award under this track.
   
• Track 2 (Implementation: Single Institution)
  Track 2 proposals have the same S-STEM goals as Track 1 proposals. They generally involve and benefit only one institution, but they will serve more scholars than Track 1 proposals. Any IHE (as described under the eligibility section) can submit a Track 2 proposal, whether or not the institution has received prior S-STEM or STEP awards.
  Track 2 proposals may, in some cases, also include a focus on student transfer or progression to graduate school. In this case, if needed, two or more institutions could partner.
  Track 2 projects must be led by a PI who is (a) a faculty member currently teaching in one of the S-STEM eligible disciplines being pursued by the targeted scholars, or (b) an academic administrator who has taught in one of the eligible disciplines in the last two years from submission and can dedicate the time necessary to assure project success. The PI must be a member of the proposed project's leadership and management team. The leadership and management team should also include a STEM administrator (department head or above). Faculty members from all departments or academic units involved should have a role in the project either as Co-PIs, senior personnel, or scholar mentors. The project team could include, if appropriate, a non-teaching institutional, educational, or social science researcher to support evidence-based responses to items raised by the external evaluator through formative evaluation. This additional researcher cannot take the place of the external evaluator. Proposals for Track 2 may request up to $2,500,000 total for up to 6 years.
  
   
• Track 3 (Inter-institutional Consortia)
  Track 3 projects support multi-institutional collaborations that focus on a common interest or challenge. Inter-institutional Consortia projects represent diverse collaborations, including partnerships between 2-year colleges and 4-year colleges and universities, between 4-year colleges and graduate programs, or between comparable institutions looking to implement and study parallel interventions. For example, a collaboration among community colleges and four-year institutions may focus on issues associated with successful transfer of low-income students from 2-year institutions to 4-year programs. In another example, a multi-institutional collaboration may focus on factors that contribute to the success or degree attainment of domestic, low-income students in different types of institutions.
  Proposals with a strong focus on the transfer or advancement of students from one educational level to another should collaborate with appropriate institutional partners. For example, proposals focused on the transfer of students from 2-year institutions to 4-year institutions should include faculty and administrators from 2-year institutions and 4-year institutions in the leadership team; likewise, proposals focusing on the advancement of undergraduate students at predominately undergraduate institutions to graduate programs should include institutions, administrators and Co-PIs representing both the undergraduate programs and the receiving graduate programs.
  Track 3 projects have the same overall goals as Track 1 and 2 projects but seek to accomplish these goals at a very large scale by leveraging multi-institutional efforts and infrastructure. In addition to the expectations stated below in section II.B.2 for all tracks, Track 3 projects are also expected to:

1. Establish an authentic, strong and mutually beneficial collaboration across all institutions involved in the consortia, providing comparable benefits to all institutions in terms of number of scholarships as well as in the infrastructure established to serve low-income students;
2. Establish strong technical assistance and processes that support and manage project activities across institutions involved in the collaborative effort.
3. Engage in high quality educational or social sciences research to advance understanding of how to adapt, implement and scale up effective evidence-based programs and practices designed to foster positive outcomes for low-income students in STEM.
   
   NSF does not favor a particular research design over others. How the chosen research methods and approaches are aligned with and appropriate for the research goals should be fully explained in the proposal. The ultimate goal of S-STEM is to support low-income students with awards covering their unmet need, up to the maximum allowable scholarship amount (whatever is less). Projects are strongly discouraged from allowing a desired sample size to play a role in the determination of the size of awarded scholarships.
   Track 3 projects are managed by leadership and management teams composed of faculty members who are currently teaching in an S-STEM eligible discipline(s), STEM administrators, and non-teaching institutional, educational, or social science researchers. The PI of Track 3 proposals must be either (a) a faculty member currently teaching in one of the S-STEM eligible disciplines, (b) a STEM administrator (department head or above), or (c) a non-teaching researcher whose expertise is in institutional, educational, or social science research in higher education. Faculty from all the institutions and disciplines involved need to be included in the leadership team and/or senior personnel. The lead PI needs to demonstrate the capacity, experience and resources needed to manage a complex, large-scale project and the necessary time to dedicate to assure project success.
   Track 3 proposals may request up to $5 million total for up to 6 years.
   Proposers should be aware that Track 3 projects will be formally reviewed by NSF during their third year to determine whether satisfactory progress has been made, with continued funding contingent on the result of the third-year review. See section VII.C on reporting requirements.

• Collaborative Planning Grants to Develop an Inter-institutional Consortium
  Collaborative Planning projects provide support for groups of two or more IHEs and other potential partner organizations to establish fruitful collaborations, increase understanding of complex issues faced by low-income students at each institution, establish inter-institutional agreements when necessary and develop mechanisms for cooperation in anticipation of a future Track 3 proposal that will benefit all institutions and their scholars as equal partners.
  This category of projects aims to provide proposers from two or more institutions the funds and time to establish the relationships and agreements necessary for submitting an Inter-institutional Consortia S-STEM proposal. It is expected that proposers will be ready to write and submit this Inter-institutional Consortia proposal within 1-2 years of receiving a Collaborative Planning grant award. Any subsequent proposals to S-STEM based on this work must describe the results of the planning effort.

New institutional restrictions for this program for 2022:

1. An institution may submit up to two proposals (either as a single institution or as subawardee or a member of an inter-institutional consortia project) for a given S-STEM deadline. Multiple proposals from an institution must not overlap with regard to S-STEM eligible disciplines. See Additional Eligibility Information below for more details (see IV. Eligibility Information).
2. Institutions with a current S-STEM award should wait at least until the end of the third year of execution of their current award before submitting a new S-STEM proposal focused on students pursuing degrees in the same discipline(s).

The above restrictions do not apply to collaborative planning grant proposals.

Limit: 3  // PIs: 
O. Zhupanska (Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering)
E. Butcher (Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering)
H. Fasel (Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering)

For more information about this funding program, please contact:

• Cody Nicholls, PhD, Associate Director, National Security Programs
• Nate Gahr, Senior Director, National Security Programs

UArizona may submit three (3) applications.

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), in the Department of Defense (DOD), released a funding opportunity announcement (FOA) for the fiscal year (FY) 2024 DOD Research and Education Program for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions (HBCU/MI).  As you know, this effort is DOD’s premiere program in providing support to advance basic research at HBCUs and MIs.  In particular, this FOA seeks to:

• Improve the programs and capabilities of HBCUs/MIs in science and engineering disciplines relevant to DOD;
• Increase the participation of HBCUs and MIs in flagship DOD research programs by furthering HBCU/MI capacity; and
• Increase the number of underrepresented minority graduates in STEM fields relevant to the Department.

Principal Investigators (PIs) should consider novel approaches for proposed projects, with a focus on enhancing the capabilities of their institutions to develop stronger STEM programs to better HBCU/MI participation in competitive defense research programs.  The ultimate goal of the program is to promote STEM research to underrepresented students and encourage them to pursue STEM careers in disciplines of importance to DOD.  Proposed research should align with the areas of interests that have been identified by each of the branches, which can be found in previous broad agency announcements (BAAs) from the Army Research Laboratory (ARL), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR).  More information on each of these BAAs can be found in the full solicitation.  

DOD anticipates awarding a total of $50 million, up to $1 million per grant, for a performance period of 48 months. 

Institutionally Coordinated // Limit: 1 // PI:  M. franco (Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) Initiatives)

The submission for this funding program is coordinated by the Office of Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) Initiatives.
Please contact Riley McIsaac, Associate Director of Grants Development, for more information.

The purpose of this program is to equitably improve postsecondary student outcomes, including retention, transfer (including successful transfer of completed credits), credit accumulation, and completion, by leveraging data and implementing, scaling, and rigorously evaluating evidence-based activities to support data-driven decisions and actions by institutional leaders committed to inclusive student success.

This grant program seeks to fund evidence-based (as defined in this notice) strategies that result in improved student outcomes for underserved students (as defined in this notice). The program has two absolute priorities that correspond to varying evidence standards. This multi-tiered competition invites applicants that are in the “early phase” or “mid-phase/expansion” of their evidence-based work to support students through degree completion. This grant also supports the evaluation, dissemination, scaling, and sustainability efforts of the activities funded under this grant.

In this competition, eligibility is limited to institutions that are designated as eligible under the HEA titles III and V programs, nonprofits that are not IHEs or associated with an IHE in partnership with institutions that are designated as eligible under the HEA titles III and V programs, States in partnerships with institutions that are designated as eligible under the HEA titles III and V programs, and public systems of institutions. Institutions designated as eligible under titles III and V include Historically Black Colleges or Universities (HBCUs), Tribally Controlled Colleges or Universities (TCCUs), Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) and other institutions with high enrollment of needy students and below average full-time equivalent (FTE) expenditures—including community colleges. The Department believes that targeting funding to these IHEs is the best use of the available funding because these institutions disproportionately enroll students from groups who are underrepresented among college completers, such as low-income students. Supporting retention and completion strategies at these institutions offers the greatest potential to close gaps in postsecondary outcomes. Additionally, these under resourced institutions are most in need of Federal assistance to implement and evaluate evidence-based postsecondary college retention and completion interventions.

Early-Phase

Early-phase grants provide funding to IHEs to develop, implement, and test the feasibility of a program that prior research suggests is likely to improve relevant outcomes, for the purpose of determining whether an initiative improves student retention and completion of postsecondary students. Early-phase grants must “demonstrate a rationale” (as defined in this notice) and include a logic model (as defined in this notice), theory of action, or another conceptual framework that includes the goals, objectives, outcomes, and key project components (as defined in this notice) of the project, and that demonstrates the relationship between such proposed activities and the relevant outcomes the project is designed to achieve. The evaluation design will be assessed on the extent to which it would meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards with or without reservations. The evaluation of an Early-phase project should be an experimental or quasi-experimental design study (both as defined in this notice) that can determine whether the program can successfully improve postsecondary student success outcomes for underserved students.

Early-phase grantees during their grant period are encouraged to make continuous and iterative improvements in project design and implementation before conducting a full-scale evaluation of effectiveness. Grantees should consider how easily others could implement the proposed practice, and how its implementation could potentially be improved. Additionally, grantees should consider using data from early indicators to gauge initial impact and to consider possible changes in implementation that could increase student outcomes.

Mid-Phase/Expansion

Mid-phase/Expansion grants are supported by moderate evidence (as defined in this notice) or strong evidence (as defined in this notice), respectively. These grants provide funding to IHEs to improve and/or expand initiatives and practices that have been proven to be effective in increasing postsecondary student retention and completion. Mid-phase/Expansion projects should provide vital insight about an intervention's effectiveness, such as for whom and in which contexts a practice/intervention is most effective. Mid-phase grantees should also measure the cost-effectiveness of their practices using administrative or other readily available data.

Mid-phase/Expansion grant projects are distinctly situated to provide insight on scaling an initiative to a larger population of students or across multiple campuses.

These grants must be implemented at a multi-site sample (as defined in this notice) with more than one campus or in one campus that includes at least 2,000 students. Project evaluations must evaluate the effectiveness of the project at each site.

Mid-phase/Expansion grants must meet the “moderate evidence” threshold or “strong evidence” standard and include a logic model that demonstrates the relationship between the key project components and the relevant outcomes the project is designed to achieve. Mid-phase/Expansion grants are also required to submit an evaluation design that will be assessed on the extent to which it would meet WWC Evidence Standards without reservations.

Note that all research that meets the strong evidence standard also meets the moderate evidence standard. As such, the effective evidence standard for Absolute Priority 2 is moderate evidence. However, we encourage applicants to propose projects based on strong evidence and to expand services even beyond the scale requirements under Absolute Priority 2. We have combined the two types of grants into a single tier given funding limitations and the fact that this is the first year of implementing a tiered evidence structure in this program.

All Grant Tiers

PSSG applicants should consider how these evidence-based practices are implemented and the impact these practices have on their student population given their context. PSSG applicants seek to explore the effectiveness of practices/strategies that can improve student persistence and retention, leading to degree completion.

The evaluation of a PSSG project should be designed to determine whether the program can successfully improve postsecondary student persistence, retention, and completion. As previously stated, the evaluation design for early phase applications will be assessed on the extent to which it could meet WWC Evidence Standards with or without reservations while the evaluation design for mid phase/expansion applications will be assessed on the extent to which it could meet WWC Evidence Standards without reservations.

The Department intends to provide grantees and their independent evaluators with technical assistance in their evaluation, dissemination, scaling, and sustainability efforts. This could include grantees and their evaluators providing to the Department or its contractor updated comprehensive evaluation plans in a format as requested by the technical assistance provider and using such tools as the Department may request. Grantees will be encouraged to update this evaluation plan at least annually to reflect any changes to the evaluation. Updates must be consistent with the scope and objectives of the approved application.

PSSG applicants should consider their organizational capacity and the funding needed to sustain their projects and continue implementation and adaptation after Federal funding ends.

Priorities: This notice contains two absolute priorities and one competitive preference priority. We are establishing the absolute priorities and competitive preference priority for the FY 2023 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Applicants have the option of addressing the competitive preference priority and may opt to do so regardless of the absolute priority they select.

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2023 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet one of these priorities.

These Priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1 (AP1)—Applications that Demonstrate a Rationale. “Early-phase”.

Under this priority, an applicant proposes a project that demonstrates a rationale to improve postsecondary success for underserved students, including retention and completion.

Absolute Priority 2 (AP2)—Applicants that Demonstrate Moderate Evidence, “Mid-phase” or Strong Evidence, “Expansion”.

Under this priority, an applicant proposes a project supported by evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of “Moderate Evidence” or “Strong Evidence,” to improve postsecondary success for underserved students, including retention and completion. Projects under this priority must be implemented at a multi-site sample or include at least 2,000 students.

(a) Applicants addressing this priority must:

(1) identify up to two studies to be reviewed against the WWC Handbooks (as defined in this notice) for the purposes of meeting the definition of moderate evidence or strong evidence;

(2) clearly identify the citations and relevant findings for each study in the Evidence form; and

(3) ensure that all cited studies are available to the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where each is available.

No applicants // Limit: 1 // Tickets Available: 1 

The goal of the Bridges to the Baccalaureate Research Training Program is to provide structured activities to prepare a diverse cohort of research-oriented students to transfer from associate degree-granting institutions to baccalaureate degree-granting institutions and complete a baccalaureate degree in disciplines related to the biomedical sciences. This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) provides support to eligible, domestic institutions to develop and implement effective, evidence-informed approaches to biomedical training and mentoring that will keep pace with the rapid evolution of the research enterprise. NIGMS expects that the proposed research training programs will incorporate didactic, research, mentoring, and career development elements. This program requires strong partnerships between at least two post-secondary educational institutions offering science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degrees. At least one partner must be an institution that offers the associate degree as the highest STEM degree and the other partner(s) must offer baccalaureate degrees in biomedically relevant STEM fields. Upon completion of the Bridges to the Baccalaureate Research Training program, trainees are expected to be well positioned to pursue research-oriented biomedical higher degree programs or enter careers in the biomedical research workforce.

Training related expenses are limited to a maximum of $10,000/trainee/year. The maximum cap for the TRE portion of the proposed budget is $100,000/year. 

Limit: 2  // PIs: 
J. Wolfe (Mathematics) 
H. Monroe (Center for Recruitment and Retention of Mathematics Teachers)

UA may submit two proposals.
The submission of this funding program is coordinated by RII with the assistance of the UA Foundation.

The APS Foundation supports programs that enhance academic achievement in the areas of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). Since 1981, the Foundation has invested more than $44 million in projects throughout Arizona that help prepare students to compete in a 21st century economy.
A workforce proficient in STEM skills is critical to attracting and retaining high-quality businesses and industries to the state. The APS Foundation targets projects that help educators increase content knowledge in STEM subjects as well as the ability to transfer this knowledge effectively to students.

Average funding amount: ~ $75,000

How we evaluate potential programs:
Organizations must be registered as a 501(c)(3) public charity in good financial and public standing. Programs should demonstrate their ability to improve educational outcomes, increase access and/or offer an innovative approach to learning.
All grantees will have specific reporting requirements and must submit a final evaluation before they can be considered for additional funding.

Please note, the APS Foundation will not support:
• Individuals
• Individual K-12 schools
• Religious organizations, churches and programs that are purely denominational in purpose
• Political, labor or fraternal organizations, associations or civic service clubs
• Legislative, lobbying or advocacy efforts or organizations
• Private or family foundations
• Animal shelters or agencies
• Foundations or organizations which are grant-making entities or that distribute funds to other nonprofit organizations (pass through)
• Start-up organizations defined as nonprofits whose ruling year has been granted by the IRS for less than three years
• Organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, disability, gender, gender identity, age, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, protected veteran status or any other classification protected by law
• Health organizations whose primary focus is funding programs or services for a specific disease or illness
• Sports teams or sporting programs
• Scouting troops
While not a part of our traditional grant program, the APS Foundation occasionally supports capital requests of our long-standing partners on an invite-only basis.

No applicants // Limit: 1 // Tickets Available: 1 

UArizona may submit one proposal to this funding program. 

The national cyberinfrastructure (CI) ecosystem is essential to computational- and data-intensive research across all science and engineering (S&E) domains. The CI ecosystem is highly dynamic, driven by rapid advances in a wide range of technologies, increasing volumes of highly heterogeneous data, and escalating demands for CI resources and services by the research community. Innovations in CI are consequently key catalysts for new modes of discovery and play a critical role in ensuring U.S. leadership in science, engineering, economic competitiveness, and national security, consistent with NSF's mission. It is thus imperative that CI innovations become available, in a coordinated and sustainable manner, as part of the NSF-funded advanced CI ecosystem.

The Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Coordination Ecosystem of Support and Services (ACCESS) program provides an array of national-scale CI services to the S&E research community, including integrated coordination of users’ requests for computational and data resources; integration of resource providers’ systems; deployment of technical support; monitoring of system usage; user training; and communication and outreach to the CI and research communities. The ACCESS program is envisioned to include a process to enable breakthrough CI innovations of recognized value to researchers to be translated into production-quality sustained services that are deployed and made available to the user community from applicable NSF-funded resource providers. Such a process would also include methods to prioritize which innovations to translate to production services and to identify when these services should be taken out of service or replaced.  

This CITAP solicitation is focused on the translation of innovative research CI software – such as system software, libraries, application codes, and software enabling data services. NSF seeks proposals that aim to design, test, and subsequently operate a pathway service within the ACCESS program that manages and accelerates the translation of promising research CI software to production-quality services across the NSF advanced CI ecosystem in support of the NSF S&E research community. CITAP proposals are expected to create a new workflow process (represented notionally in Figure 1 below) within the ACCESS program that: (1) identifies novel CI software from diverse sources in a strongly community-informed way; (2) establishes an open and merit-based process for selecting and prioritizing/sequencing which of the identified innovations are of highest and most immediate value to users of the advanced CI ecosystem and can be feasibly translated to production level and made available for use by researchers using ACCESS resources; and (3) establishes an operational process that translates innovations into production services, including creation of partnerships where necessary to address each of the technical challenges and intellectual property (IP) considerations faced when integrating novel CI software within the advanced CI ecosystem.

Examples of translation challenges include (but are not limited to): awareness by potential users who could benefit from the technology; systems engineering and software deployment; an initial launch period of collaborative maintenance; anticipation of user support that will be necessary; engagement of people or possibly organizations needed to sustain and upgrade the software/service in response to changes in technology and/or feedback from users and communities served; and determination of when the relative use or value of the software has decreased to an extent that decommissioning is warranted. The pathway must also be designed to evolve as the types of systems and services that are part of the NSF-funded production advanced CI ecosystem evolve and expand.

Limit: 1  // PI selected: T. M. Bishop (Cooperative extension Gila County - Globe / Gila County - Payson, 4-H Youth Development)

UArizona may submit one proposal.

NIFA requests applications for the Agriculture in the Classroom (AITC) program for fiscal year (FY) 2023 to increase agricultural literacy through K-12 education. The anticipated amount available for FY 2023 is approximately $960,000 and will support funding for the initial year. Continuation funding of similar funding levels may be awarded for an additional three years provided performance has been satisfactory, appropriations are available for this purpose, and continued support is in the best interests of the Federal government and the public. Applications should be submitted for the full four years. USDA is not committed to fund any particular application or to make a specific number of awards.

The disciplines of agriculture and education have been related for much of our nation's history. When most Americans lived on farms or in small towns, students often did farm chores before and after school. Old schoolbooks have numerous agricultural references. As the farming population began to decline, agricultural emphasis decreased in educational materials as well.

A core group of educators and agriculturalists pushed for more youth education about agriculture. They recognized the interlocking role of farming and food and fiber production with environmental quality, which included wildlife habitat, clean water, and the preservation of forests.

NIFA's AITC serves nearly five million students and 60,000 teachers in developing awareness and skills as they relate to food, agriculture, and disciplines supportive of the agricultural enterprise. AITC supports this awareness through workshops, conferences, field trips, farm tours, and other educational activities and includes working with state AITC organizations and activities engaged in a variety of issues relating to agricultural literacy.

This notice identifies the objectives for AITC projects, deadlines, funding information, eligibility criteria for projects and applicants, and application forms and associated instructions.

W. Parent-Johnson (Family and Community Medicine) //  Limit: 1  

UArizona may submit one proposal to this funding program. 

The purpose of the RPED Grant Program is to improve rates of postsecondary enrollment, persistence, and completion among rural students through development of career pathways aligned to high-skill, high-wage, and in-demand industry sectors and occupations in the region.

For rural students, and particularly low-income and underserved rural students, barriers to accessing postsecondary education include difficulties in accessing high speed internet, transportation, child care, and healthcare; as well as challenges of experiencing poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity. Furthermore, many rural students who do decide to attend college are first-generation students who lack sufficient college preparation in high school,[4] and are unfamiliar with the inner workings of postsecondary institutions, including the college application process and how to finance a college education.[5] These students may feel underprepared for higher education and typically face challenges once in college; many experience hurdles that leave them unable to complete their programs.[6] Accordingly, these inequities in college readiness and knowledge may discourage individuals from underserved student populations from continuing their education beyond high school.[7] These and other challenges may negatively affect rural students' ability to be academically successful and in turn be competitive in the job market.[8] 

Many of these challenges result from geographic isolation, distance from services, and a lack of resources and institutions to support community members. Rural communities are often located in education deserts, which may limit students' exposure or convenient access to postsecondary institutions.[9] For many rural students, transportation is a barrier to accessing colleges where they can earn a bachelor's degree, and thus they begin their postsecondary education at 2-year colleges