2005-2006 Learning Technology Grant Application

EMSC Banner for Content Pages. The banner reads, "New York State Education Department
(NYSED), Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC)"

Back to EMSC Home
SED Home
Disclaimers and Notices

2005-2006 Learning Technology Grant Application

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	Good	Fair	Poor	N/A
1. Description of Applicant’s Needs (10 points)
Clearly states the academic and technology needs to be addressed in this grant.	4.00	3.00	2.00	1.00	0
Details the steps taken to assess the needs using relevant data, including the NYS School Report Card, to substantiate these needs for all grant participants.	3.00	2.25	1.50	.75	0
Explains how this grant integrates with the overall technology plan of the participating districts.	3.00	2.25	1.50	.75	0
Note: Identify all school building(s) that will be participating in the program on the Participating School Data Form. Also list participating nonpublic, SURR and SINI schools on the Application Checklist.
Comment: Score ( ) out of 10

2. Objectives (10 points)	Very Good	Good	Fair	Poor	N/A
Lists clear, realistic measurable objectives that address the academic and technology needs identified above	7.00	5.25	3.50	1.75	0
Links objectives to student attainment of State learning standards, key ideas 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	Good	Fair	Poor	N/A
Lists activities, methods or strategies that will be implemented to achieve the applicants stated objectives.	10.00	7.50	5.00	2.50	0
Includes a timeline for the implementation of project activities.	5.00	3.75	2.50	1.25	0
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
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	Good	Fair	Poor	N/A
Describes the process followed to consult with nonpublic schools of all denominations and nonsectarian private schools in the service area. Lists the schools contacted.	3.00	2.25	1.50	.75	0
Describes how nonpublic schools have participated in the planning of this proposal.	3.00	2.25	1.50	.75	0
Describes how participating 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	Good	Fair	Poor	N/A
Describes how the professional development program will help teachers integrate technology into curriculum and classroom instruction.	4.00	3.50	3.00	2.50	0
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.	7.00	5.00	3.00	1.00	0
Describes how classroom technology integration will be supported through in-classroom coaching and/or mentoring.	7.00	5.00	3.00	1.00	0
Describes how professional development will build the capacity of teachers to make use of web-based content, tools and resources to enhance classroom instruction.	2.00	1.50	1.00	.50	0
Comment: Score ( ) out of 20

Applicant:

Reviewer Number:

6. Project Evaluation (15 points):	Very Good	Good	Fair	Poor	N/A
Describes how this proposal impacts on students' academic achievement of the New York State Learning Standards and teachers capacity to integrate educational technologies into classroom instruction will be evaluated	5.00	3.75	2.50	1.25	0
Includes clear, realistic and measurable objectives.	5.00	3.75	2.50	1.25	0
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	Good	Fair	Poor	N/A
Includes a detailed FS-10 budget form · At least 45 percent of the proposed grant is allocated for professional development. · Equipment expenditures do not exceed 45 percent of the total budget. · A maximum of 5 percent of the budget is used for program administration and technical support. · A maximum of 5 percent of the budget spent on evaluation.	2.00	1.50	1.00	.50	0
Submits a budget narrative explaining how items in the FS-10 are linked to the proposed program.	2.00	1.50	1.00	.50	0
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	Good	Fair	Poor	N/A
Describes project staffing, including the number and type of positions.	2.00	1.50	1.00	.50	0
Describes the duties amount of time each staff person will devote to project activities.	1.00	.75	.50	.25	0
Explains the qualifications and experience of staff members.	2.00	1.50	1.00	.50	0
Comment: Score ( ) out of 5

Total Score: ( ) out of 100

Back to LTG Grant Application

06/15/2007