Technology Grant Proposal Review

By Chip Flemmer

            To me there are several factors that are important in analyzing whether or not an evaluation is well done and worthy of the one with the keys to the money bags to open up the strings.   I really think that there are numerous factors that go into one’s decision making process. I believe that the overall quality and depth, the goals and objectives, the framework for the evaluation, the intervals for getting the job done, who is doing the evaluating, as well as the budget are crucial factors in deciding whether or not to accept a proposal.

            The first factor I want to see is the quality and depth of the proposal.  I realize that you could have a great idea for an evaluation, but if the quality and depth are weak, my confidence level in those evaluators would severely dwindle because if they didn’t take pride in the quality and depth of their proposal I couldn’t help but question what there actual evaluation would look like.      

            I felt that the technology grant proposal was very well done.  The proposal was extremely thorough.  I found the task schedule to be in depth and provide me with all of the information I would seek if the decision was in my hands whether or not to fund this evaluation.

            I also think it is critical to know what you are trying to find.  I like to see goals and objectives clearly stated because without direction it is pretty hard to know if you hit your target.  This proposal clearly states that they want to answer the question “how does technology impact student learning?”  They want to provide sound evaluative studies to answer that question and from their proposal I wouldn’t doubt that they did it.  The goals were easy to understand and in my opinion, worthy of funding: raising low achieving students’ academic performance, positive afterschool activities for students, positive family and student interaction, just to name a few. 

            The framework for the evaluation was also very well done and easy to follow.  The various tables and charts made it much easier for me to understand the whole process. The intervals for meeting the various objectives are also clearly stated along with the indicators and project activities. I found this section of the evaluation to be a nice outline of what was going to happen, how it was going to happen, and for how long it would happen.

            The one area I almost felt was weaker than the others was the who would be doing the evaluating. I believe that the professor from George Mason is well qualified, however, I feel that a larger pool of evaluators would have given me more confidence. Nothing against the professor, but I always feel that if you have more qualified minds then you can get a wider perspective on the evaluation instead of just taking one person's word. However, I was reassured in knowing that the professor was a part of the pilot program. To me that meant that this evaluation could build on what was done well while removing things that didn’t work. 

            With any proposal, things can sound great, but as soon as you see the budget you end up wondering if the evaluation is really worth that dollar amount.  In this case, I was initially floored at the large price tag in excess of two million dollars.   However, when I looked at the big picture and realized that it was helping 1,285 students, and 2,190 adults over the course of three years, I realized that this a steep price, but it might be money well spent.  The grant did a nice job of explaining the use of the money and not just giving numbers.  The cost per person is $833 and though steep, I feel that the rewards will outweigh the negative.  This is geared to help people that typically are often forgotten in the world of technology. In my opinion, I would grant the money to fund this evaluation.  I believe it would be money well spent.