|
|
|
| ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, SECONDARY AND CONTINUING EDUCATION | |
Office of Curriculum and Instructional Support
Learning Technology Grant
for Enhancing Teaching and Learning
2004-2005
Proposal Evaluation Rubric
| Applicant: | Reviewer Number: | Total Score: |
Rating Guidelines:
Very Good - Specific and comprehensive. Complete, detailed, and clearly articulated information as to how the criteria are met. Well-conceived and thoroughly developed ideas.
Good - General but sufficient detail. Adequate information as to how the criteria are met, but some areas are not fully explained and/or questions remain. Some minor inconsistencies and weaknesses.
Fair - Sketchy and non-specific. Criteria appear to be minimally met, but limited information is provided about approach and strategies. Lacks focus and detail.
Poor - Does not meet the criteria, fails to provide information, provides inaccurate information, or provides information that requires substantial clarification as to how the criteria are met.
N/A - Does not address the criteria or simply re-states the criteria.
|
Criteria |
Very |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
N/A |
| 1. Description of Applicant’s Needs (10 points) | |||||
|
4.00 |
3.00 |
2.00 |
1.00 |
0 |
|
·2 Details the steps taken to assess the needs using relevant data, including the NYS Report Card, to substantiate these needs for all grant participants. |
3.00 |
2.25 |
1.50 |
.75 |
0 |
|
·3 Explains how this grant integrates with the overall technology plan of the district. |
3.00 |
2.25 |
1.50 |
.75 |
0 |
| Note: Identify the SURR and/or SINI school building that will be participating in the grant on both the application checklist and the participating school data form. | |||||
| Comment: Score ( ) out of 10
|
|||||
| 2. Objectives (10 points) |
Very |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
N/A |
|
·4 Lists clear, realistic measurable objectives that address the academic and technology needs identified above |
7.00 |
5.25 |
3.50 |
1.75 |
0 |
|
·5 Links objectives to student attainment of State learning standards and performance indicators. |
3.00 |
2.25 |
1.50 |
.75 |
0 |
| Comment: Score ( ) out of 10
|
|||||
| Applicant: | Reviewer Number: |
| 3. Project Activities, Outline and Timeline (25 points): |
Very |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
N/A |
|
·6 Lists activities, methods or strategies that will be implemented to achieve the applicants stated objectives. |
10.00 |
7.50 |
5.00 |
2.50 |
0 |
|
·7 Includes a timeline for the implementation of project activities. |
5.00 |
3.75 |
2.50 |
1.25 |
0 |
|
·8 Describes how the project activities are based on research relevant to student attainment of State learning standards. |
5.00 |
3.75 |
2.50 |
1.25 |
0 |
|
·9 Describes how technology is used to improve classroom instruction rather than placed in computer labs |
5.00 |
3.75 |
2.50 |
1.25 |
0 |
| Comment: Score ( ) out of 25
|
|||||
| 4. Collaborative Planning and Involvement of Nonpublic Schools (10 points) |
Very |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
N/A |
|
·10 Describes the process followed to reach out to the nonpublic schools of all denominations and nonsectarian private schools in the service area. |
3.00 |
2.25 |
1.50 |
.75 |
0 |
|
·11 Describes how nonpublic schools have participated in the planning of this proposal. |
3.00 |
2.25 |
1.50 |
.75 |
0 |
|
·12 Describes how nonpublic schools will be full partners in the acquisition of equipment, software and the professional development components of this project. Includes numbers to show equitable participation. |
4.00 |
3.00 |
2.00 |
1.00 |
0 |
| Comment: Score ( ) out of 10
|
|||||
| 5. Professional Development (20 points) |
Very |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
N/A |
|
·13 Describes how the professional development component of this program is sustained over time, and how it is linked to the needs, objectives and activities listed above. |
8.00 |
6.00 |
4.00 |
2.00 |
0 |
|
·14 Describes how classroom technology integration will be supported through in-classroom coaching and/or mentoring. |
8.00 |
6.00 |
4.00 |
2.00 |
0 |
|
·15 Describes how professional development will build the capacity of teachers to make use of web-based content, tools and resources to enhance classroom instruction. |
4.00 |
3.00 |
2.00 |
1.00 |
0 |
| Comment: Score ( ) out of 20
|
|||||
| Applicant: | Reviewer Number: |
| 6. Project Evaluation (15 points): |
Very Good |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
N/A |
|
·16 Lists clear, realistic and measurable objectives to determine the impact of this proposal on teachers’ capacity to integrate education technologies into classroom instruction. |
5.00 |
3.75 |
2.50 |
1.25 |
0 |
|
·17 Describes how each activity is expected to contribute to increased student academic achievement of the New York State learning standards. |
5.00 |
3.75 |
2.50 |
1.25 |
0 |
|
·18 Describes the key ideas and performance indicators used to measure the achievement of the projects objectives. |
5.00 |
3.75 |
2.50 |
1.25 |
0 |
| Comment: Score ( ) out of 15
|
|||||
| 7. Budget and Budget Narrative (5 points): |
Very |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
N/A |
|
·19 Resource allocations are clarified in the budget narrative as well as detailed in the FS-10 budget form. |
2.00 |
1.50 |
1.00 |
.50 |
0 |
|
·20 Explains how hardware and software will help achieve the objectives of the grant. |
2.00 |
1.50 |
1.00 |
.50 |
0 |
|
·21 Describes how funds from other sources will be used to supplement the grant funds requested. |
1.00 |
.75 |
.50 |
.25 |
0 |
| Comment: Score ( ) out of 5
|
|||||
| 8. Background and Experience of Project Staff (5 points) |
Very |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
N/A |
|
·22 Describes project staffing, including the number and type of positions. |
2.00 |
1.50 |
1.00 |
.50 |
0 |
|
·23 Indicates the amount of time each staff person will devote to project activities. |
1.00 |
.75 |
.50 |
.25 |
0 |
|
·24 Explains the duties, qualifications and experience of staff members. |
2.00 |
1.50 |
1.00 |
.50 |
0 |
| Comment: Score () out of 5
|
|||||
Total Score: ( ) out of 100