Grant Application ammendment dispute (Oct/2002)Jim Witt - Dr. Turner meetin
Page 1
From: Jim Witt
To: CEDC
Date: Fri, Oct 18, 2002 8:21 AM
Subject: Dr. Turner meeting
On Thursday I heard back from Dr. Turner regarding his review of comments submitted by those who
chose to do so regarding amendments and grant applications. His response is that he felt it would be best
if the CEDC met separately in order to work out their exact needs before meeting with CISD staff to
discuss this subject.
Last night I had an opportunity to visit with President Coker regarding this request. During that discussion
we agreed to send this e-mail to propose the following to you as members of the CEDC. The proposal is
that I call Dr. Turner and tell him that our comments regarding the amendments were fairly straightforward
and those amendments should be resubmitted as soon as possible if they choose to do so. Also I will
inform him that during our November meeting we would be examining the grant application process and
after that a meeting will probably be scheduled with all applicants, not only CISD but the other districts, to
review such.
If you feel this is a proper strategy, we will proceed. If not, please respond no later than 5 pm on Monday.
Thanks for your consideration.
im Witt - RE: Please respond Page 1
From: <SBrock1214@aol.com>
To: <JW ITT @ci.coppell.tx.us>
Date: 10/16/02 7:04AM
Subject: RE: Please respond
Hi Jim:
In response to your memo, first, I understand and empathize with Dr. Turner's
concerns. The fact of the matter for me is that the amendments and grants
did not include necessary support information to provide reasonable clarity
and understanding. In other words, based on what was written in and provided
with the grants and amendments themselves, I could not fully understand how
they arrived at the amounts requested nor was it immediately clear to which
proposal the amendments were attached. Additionally, the information
presented did not provide sufficient support documentation to ensure that
what was requested fulfilled and supported the identified need /request
completely, accurately and in the most cost effective manner.
It is apparent that visiting the grant application guidelines and
instructions, including amendments and support documentation, is necessary
and, therefore, scheduled as an agenda item for our next meeting. If
necessary, I, for one, am open to meeting sooner to discuss and resolve these
particular issues and the subsequent concerns of Dr. Turner.
I look forward to hearing from you --
Steve Brock
214.725.9253
Original Message
From: JWITT @ci.coppell.tx.us [mailto:JWITT @ci.coppell.tx.us]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:28 PM
To: sbrock1214 @aol.com; tquinn @bigfoot.com; jlcoker @gte.net; ecarter @twu.edu;
valerie.strong @verizon.com; david_hermanski @yahoo.com; sbbod1@yahoo.com
Subject: Please respond.
> ** High Priority **
> Please respond.
Jim Witt - Amendment Requirements Page 1
From: Diane Ebersberger <sbbodl @yahoo.com>
To: <jwitt @ci.coppell.tx.us>
Date: 10/16/02 2:49PM
Subject: Amendment Requirements
Jim:
First, an apology for missing what I just reread and
realized to be a "noon" deadline rather than "anytime"
October 16th. Hope my comments are still helpful. I
also expect that you will be editing and summarizing
our comments. Please feel very free to do so with
mine, especially since I realize that I may be missing
important history on these issues. For what it's
worth...
- I think there is some danger in providing Dr Turner
an explicit response before the Board's next meeting
and discussion on amendments. The discussion and vote
on the amendments at the last meeting reflected
several somewhat different opinions /expectations,
which I expect you may also see reflected in comments
you receive now. (For example, I sensed some
frustration from David that the Board was being "too
picky" about grant details when the overall objective
of the CDEC is to get money to the schools. I shared
some similar concern about the continuum between
exercising reasonable fiduciary responsibility /public
accountability and the Board's adopting a secondary
mission of teaching grant writing
perfection / "professionalism ", but there appeared to be
others with quite strong opinions about "crossing is
and dotting i's".) I think the Board will benefit
from fully airing a discussion of expectations and
guidelines not only about amendments, but also in
regard to original grant submissions. I think the
Board and the City will be better represented by a
consensus position after one is reached than by
individual comments today that may not match up with
future review and voting behavior. This would also
better serve Dr. Turner because a consensus position
will be more actionable and produce more reliable
results.
That said, here are some of my own personal thoughts
as an individual Board member.
- The written documents that are submitted as
original grant requests or to request amendments are
the "public record" of the information upon which the
Board bases its decisions and would ultimately be
judged by the citizens as to whether we appropriately
discharged our fiduciary responsibility. As such, the
documents need to be able to stand alone in making the
case for the expenditure or adjustment. CISD
attendance at Board meetings is appreciated for
Jim Witt - Amendment Requirements
Page 2
questions, clarification and a show of support, but
the documents submited in advance should be clear
enough to stand on their own.
- Here are specific examples of why I felt an
adequate public record justifying additional
expenditures was not created in the amendments as
submitted.
- ESL Amendment A - $733,152 was presented as
"Salaries for 16.5 English as a Second Language
Teachers at $42,000 (Full -time) and $21,000
(part- time) ". This presentation appeared to me to be
a mathematical error, since 16.5 FTE's at the quoted
salary rates would have correctly been $693,000, which
was the amount originally approved for the grant. The
$733,152 amount is presented a second time as the
"Total Budget Request (actual salaries and benefits) ".
I learned only through discussion that the originally
requested and approved $693,000 and basis of $42,000
per FTE was a formula estimate, and that the new total
requested reflected actual salaries and benefits for
the same 16.5 FTE's that were justified in the
original grant. However, from the written
documentation "(actual salaries and benefits) ", it was
not clear to me whether the new amount for salaries
and benefits was even for the same 16.5 FTE's
originally approved, or for additional FTE's or even
for much higher salaries for fewer teachers. A
correct mathematical representation in the first line
of the budget and a simple statement of explanation
that the new amount represented actual versus
estimated average salaries for the same 16.5 FTE's
would have provided a more clear public record for the
request.
- ESL Amendment B - There was no written explanation
that this amendment was a request to increase the
total FTE's approved for the original grant. The
request was laid out exactly as Amendment A for the
same program and so appeared initially to be in
conflict with the number of FTE's requested in
Amendment A. The written request should have made
clear that an additional FTE was being requested AND
should have included, for the public record, the
rationale for the need for additional staff (only
verbally explained to the Board as related to higher
than anticipated student count). The amendment was
also confusing for the same mathematical incongruency
seen in Amendment A, in this case representing $20,353
as "Salaries for .5 English as a Second Language
Teachers at $42,000 (full -time) and $21,000
(part- time) ". Again, verbal explanations were
helpful, but I did not feel I could vote for the
amendment on the strength of the written record of the
request.
Issues in the other amendments were similar. I would
Jim Witt - Amendment Requirements
Page 3
also suggest that in material submitted by CISD and in
any background material supplied to the Board by staff
for historical reference about an original grant,
comparisons should be made between amounts ultimately
APPROVED rather than amounts originally proposed.
Let me also say that I personally felt some of the
criticisms expressed by other Board members about the
"professionalism" or lack thereof evidenced in the
quality of the grant requests exceeded my personal
standard and were a bit extreme. I am looking for
adequate documentation to assure a "reasonable man"
that the intended use will be met consistent with the
law, the need is real, the proposed amounts are
justified /make sense for the intended purpose, etc.
Beyond that, I am not interested in rejecting grant
proposals or amendments purely on "form" as long as
the DOCUMENTED "substance" meets my reasonable man
test for fulfilling the Board's fiduciary
responsiblity.
I would also suggest that the Board consider some
reasonable adjustment process, perhaps outside of a
formal amendment, to address the estimated versus
actual salary discrepancies that are bound to occur
again given the timing of grant requests, approvals,
and teacher hiring. I'm sure this will come up as
part of our discussion of amendments. On the other
hand, I do not think that the CISD should ASSUME that
additional funds for any purpose will ever be granted
without appropriate documentation of the rationale for
the additional amount.
Again, hope this all makes sense and is helpful, Jim.
I do plan to give you a call and take you up on a
history lesson before the next Board meeting.
Regards,
Diane Ebersberger
< ADDRESS >Diane Ebersberger < /ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS >226 Crown Point Drive < /ADDRESS>
< ADDRESS >Coppell, TX 75019 < /ADDRESS>
< ADDRESS >(972)393 - 5212< /ADDRESS>
<P> < /P>
<ADDRESS> < /ADDRESS>
<P> < /P>
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
Jim Witt - Amendment Requirements
http: / /faith.yahoo.com
Page 4
Jim Witt - Suggestions for CISD Grant Amendment Requests Page
From: "jlcoker" <jlcoker @gte.net>
To: <jwitt @ci.coppell.tx.us>
Date: 10/13/02 9:47PM
Subject: Suggestions for CISD Grant Amendment Requests
Jim:
Here is a "mockup" of what I would need to see in a properly documented amendment request:
"Original amount approved in ESL Grant Agreement XXXXX: $693,000
Modified amount being requested for Grant Agreement XXXXX: $773,000
Incremental amount of funding requested: $ 80,000
Reason for amendment request:
The actual salaries and benefits of the teachers hired have exceeded the amount estimated in the original
grant request.
Attached is the documentation for the costs of the actuals being incurred by CISD for the teachers in this
program.
The number of teachers remains XX, as was in the original grant request."
Jim, I think something as simple as this example would suffice, at least for me. The numbers above are
not accurate, just something similar to what I remember off the top of my head.
I would also recommend that you resend your memo with an email subject that will catch the attention of
the board members more directly, like "URGENT: Input requested on Grant Amendments by Wed. noon ".
Please let me know what feedback you receive. If you haven't received some by end of day Tuesday, I
will be concerned.
Thanks,
Jerry
CC: <Jerry.Coker @blockbuster.com>
Jim Witt - CISD Grant Applications Oct. 9 Page 1
From: Betty Carter <f_carter @twu.edu>
To: <jwitt @ci.coppell.tx.us>
Date: 10/13/02 6:03PM
Subject: CISD Grant Applications Oct. 9
Dear Jim,
I'm afraid this note to you will be a long one, so bear with me.
Below are my problems with the amendments and proposals that came to us for
approval on October 9. I want to emphasize that these proposals were
overall no better nor any worse than the ones we received earlier in the
year. The reasons these were rejected stemmed from reasons we had
previously discussed with the proposal writers /reperesentatives from CISD
administration the the school board. Although the specifics varied, the
problems are endemic to the proposals originally received. Consequently, I
wouldn't encourage CISD to use the earlier proposals as models, but rather
look at the specifics mentioned below as well as the general problems
state in my next memo when writing future proposals.
(1). The Three Amendment As: My problem here was that I didn't know what
the applicants were requesting. Several of us asked the CISD
representatives what they wanted. When that basic question comes up,
think there's a major problem with the presentation. I don't know the best
way to present such a request, but I would think it would work somewhat
along these lines:
Amendment to Proposal (Here Give Title of the proposal or the number system
that CEDC uses to differentiate among proposals. As readers we didn't know
what was being amended)
Previously Approved Funding - I'd give a dollar amount here; the formula (x
teachers @ X Salary = Y Amount) is ok also, but the numbers have to jive.
Additional Funding Requested (Don't think it would hurt to write a sentence
stating why, e.g., teachers applied with more experience than originally
estimated, CISD gave raises, etc.). Here I'd give a figure (I realize that
this amendment was written before all personnel were hired and that the
figure may well be a ball park one, but I would think that the committee
should know that the amount of funding for each teacher would probably
increase by some dollar amount, reflecting general experience levels and
CISD raises).
With these three lines, the cooperation knows (1) what is being amended, (2)
why the amendment is necessary, and (3) how much money CISD is requesting.
Although the problem above (what did they want ?) was enough to kill the
proposals, there was another basic problem that sealed their fate. We were
given dollar amounts and personnel numbers that didn't make sense. Some of
these numbers were incorrect. Both the personnel units and the actual
dollar amounts didn't jive with the monies and personnel units actually
approved. The math has to work on a budget. It didn't.
Jim Witt - CISD Grant Applications Oct. 9 Page 2
(2) Amendment B - My problem with Amendment B harked back to the original
proposal. When that one came up for discussion, I told the writers my basic
problem with the proposal: What they failed to do was tell me *why* the
proposal would give CISD students a good, acceptable (whatever is the honest
adjective) program for Spanish in the elementary grades. This proposal just
stated that CISD wanted a number of teachers; there was no correlation
between this number and previous programs, no mention of contact
hours /student teacher ratio in terms of good instruction, no indication that
the particular configuration of the proposed program would in any way help
elementary youngsters with beginning Spanish. (There was mention that some
programs helped, but not that the proposed one did or that the proposed one
matched the programs that did show promise.) My problems about this
proposal were stated to the group and the warning clear: next time get your
act together. Well, next time came on October 9, and they didn't have their
act together. The request for funding an extra 1/2 time person gave no
indication of need. I rejected it.
(3) The Broadcast Journalism Proposal: My problem here was lack of context.
The grant writer basically said, "our equipment is outdated; we need new
equipment. Trust me on this." Well, maybe I came from Missouri in a former
life, but I want more than "trust me." Again, I am not trying to create a
template for writing a proposal, but I could see the addition of the
following kind of information important:
(a) How, specifically, does this course aid in career development? How many
students have taken the course; how many have gone on to some kind of work
in broadcast journalism?
(b) Is this a course necessary for kids to take in order to enter the field?
Do they need this as a platform before going to college or junior college or
some kind of trade school?
(c) Instead of telling me that analog technology is outdated, prove it.
What do they use at specific colleges, jr. colleges, trade schools? Do a
telephone survey. Call the local post- secondary schools. Ask them. If
this course is a prerequisite for courses at other campuses, how might the
lack of up -to date equipment harm CISD students?
(d) Does this course (or the sequence of courses) lead to immediate
employment? If so, what kind of equipment do local employees use (again,
get on the phone and call). Will the lack of digital equipment put CISD
students at some kind of *known* disadvantage.
(e) What are the specs for the equipment requested? This area may not need
an absolute finite level of detail, but I wonder why did the proposal writer
choose the equipment she did? She mentions brand names (such as Sony). Why
Sony? What features was she looking for? Otherwise, it looks like she just
thumbed through a catalog and came up with prices -- a practice that leads
to sloppy requests, requiring amendments later on (which may not be honored
in the future) or tying up grant money while the purchasing office tries to
create specs.
Rather than deal with specifics, the grant writer strung together some
quotes from kids without any connecting narrative to alert the readers
(members of CEDC) as to the purpose of these quotes. I saw this as lazy
Jim Witt - CISD Grant Applications Oct. 9
Page 3
writing and uninformative. I rejected the proposal because, as written, it
was a gimmie letter (give me more money) lacking in educational need.
(4) Proposal for Technology Systems. I rejected this proposal because the
writer didn't address the educational value of the materials requested. She
told (again, told rather than showed) us the curriculum materials requested
would meet the objectives of the course. I want to know more. I want to
know not only if these materials meet the objectives, but do they do so
well. The analogy I used at the meeting was one of making grant money
available for digging holes. Folks could apply for equipment, which, in my
way of thinking would vary from teaspoons to post hole diggers to shovels to
those big yellow trucks that scoop out dirt. Each would meet the objectives
of digging holes. The question is: Which would do so the best, and why?
Because this question wasn't answered, I rejected the proposal.
Those are some of my specifics for rejecting the proposals of October 9.
Since I see this note has gone on forever, I'II send you a second one about
my problems with the proposals in general. I want to emphasize that the
kinds of information I called for (such as proof of outdatedness of
television equipment) is by *no* means a requirement that should have been
included. What I was looking for was some kind of context for that need.
As a lay person, these were thoughts that came into my head. I believe that
a professional, well versed in the subject and the situation, would come up
with others, much more appropriate to the case. For example, if there were
some kind of statewide showing of student productions, perhaps those that
were the most successful came from schools with the new equipment. What I
want is detail and specificity in context, and was using my comments as
examples.
Betty Carter
Jim Witt - CEDC Application Writing In General
Page 1
From: Betty Carter <f_carter @twu.edu>
To: <jwitt @ci.coppell.tx.us>
Date: 10/13/02 6:05PM
Subject: CEDC Application Writing In General
Dear Jim:
This note should be the second one you get from me. The first addressed my
problems with the particular CEDC applications of October 9. This note
addresses problems in general. To my mind, these general considerations are
of greater importance than the specifics of the Oct. 9 proposals.
Let me preface the below comments by saying that I realize that in many ways
this process is revolutionary in terms of school finance, and I believe that
this revolutionary nature may be at the root of some of the confusion
between the CISD and the CEDC. It appears to me that most school financing
occurs with the financiers paying their taxes and having those taxes sent to
school districts to use as best they can. If there're generally perceived
problems with that use, either conceptually or fiscally, then the ones with
the spending power or influence (typically the superintendent or school
board members) are removed from their positions. There are also certain
targeted means of campus, or special interest, finance, such as the giving
drives going on now to supplement individual campus budgets or for band
parents to purchase uniforms. But the process the CEDC is involved with is
different and is, in many ways, a reversal of traditional funding patterns.
Rather than have the educational establishment declare need, and ask for
money to meet that need, the ballot language that appropriated the sales tax
defined the need (promoting literacy, foreign language, and /or career
technology for a skilled workforce) and the job of the school districts is
to show how their personnel or programs or materials can meet that need.
When the districts are able to do that showing, then the CEDC is able to
grant the monies it can. It is in the showing that CISD has failed.
I want to emphasize that the problems with the applications are not ones of
adding a decorative daub or including a special phrase or catch word, but
rather of sound thinking and good writing. Neither has been apparent in the
CISD proposals. Here are my general suggestions to future proposal writers.
(1) Know Your Audience. Here is my take on the audience, which is the CEDC.
First, we are a group of citizens concerned with helping improve the
education offered to students living in Coppell. Knowing that, proposal
writers should ask themselves if they've addressed this question in their
proposals. Have they raised the issue of improved education? Without going
through each of the proposals, my overall answer is "No." (I suspect the
proposal writers would think that this issue is implied. If it's a major
concern of the audience, I wouldn't leave that concern to implication.)
What the proposal writers have largely done is said: "We want this
particular thing," as if they were facing a giant Jeopardy Board and
stating, "I think we'll take Literacy Programs for $200,000, Alex." Like
the Jeopardy players, I believe the CISD has some questions to answer at
this point. How does this proposed program, or these personnel, or this
particular piece of software fit into the stated need? Why is this proposed
program, or these personnel, or this particular piece of software chosen?
If it is a program, such as the Spanish Language program in the elementary
schools, for example, then how was it created? By studying other programs,
by reading the research on Spanish Language in elementary schools, by trying
Jim Witt - CEDC Application Writing In General
Page 2'
to continue a once successful program in CISD? How does this proposal fit
into the overall educational goals of the district? How will the funding of
this program, or personnel, or this piece of software help improve the
educational offerings of the district? I think this failure to address the
basic concern of the CEDC is an opportunity wasted and has led to all kinds
of problems. Since, for example, the CEDC wants to help improve education,
and feels little sense of having done so, then the corporation is
frustrated. I think this frustration leads to concerns about prioritizing
applications which may be a huge headache down the road. How much easier to
have each application address this major concern of the audience.
Second, the CEDC is composed of lay people. Yes, some of us have strong
ties to education as teachers, spouses of teachers, even as former (and in
some cases present) students. But we are not sitting on this board as
educators. Consequently, my advice to proposal writers is to drop the
jargon. Don't use words like TEAKS, TAAS, or tris without explanation. One
of the most common pieces of advice to writers is to act like your audience
knows nothing. This advice doesn't mean to talk down to your audience, but
rather to explain possible ambiguities or jargon or specialized contexts so
that those not familiar with the situation can have your take on it rather
than create their own.
(2) Think of your audience when writing. I would think that someone asking
for money (or anything, for that matter) would want the person reading the
request to be engaged in the request. I would not think that the writer
would want the reader to be bored, confused, or uncertain about the request.
I have never had the former experience when reading the CISD proposals; I've
typically had the latter. Here are some specifics.
A. Several proposals have come complete with a list of programmatic goals
and objectives. I find page after page of such numbing, particularly when
they are accompanied by no narrative from the proposal writer. In these
cases, the reader is asked to match the requests to the program goals. That
interpretation might well be incorrect (since the readers are lay people and
unfamiliar with the basics behind the request). Frequently there is only a
tangential relation between some of the goals or objectives and a request.
For example, software requested in the application might only address three
particular objectives. My advice: choose the goals and objectives most
closely related to the proposal; show the reader how this relationship
works; and, if it appears important to include all the goals and objectives,
put them in an appendix. That way the writer won't clutter the proposal
with unnecessary information and leave the page count (appendices don't
count in the total number of pages) for strengthening his or her case.
B. One of the recent proposals mentioned that three teachers were teaching
a particular course and that twelve students were enrolled in each class and
that the total enrollment for the course was 119 students. I couldn't for
the life of me make the math work out here and that small bit of confusion
nagged at me during the entire reading. The confusion came from the writer
not knowing her audience and addressing their particular levels of
non - expertise about the school system. We didn't know how many classes were
taught per day by each teacher and how the number could come out to be an
odd one. With just one explanatory sentence, the proposal writer could have
eliminated this confusion. Over and over during the discussions of the
proposals last year, CEDC members kept repeating "I'm not sure what they
mean here" and asking for clarification. This kind of behavior is a bad
sign. In writing the proposals, look for possible areas of
Jim Witt - CEDC Application Writing In General
misunderstanding, particularly by the readers who are not familiar with the
day to day workings of a particular school, and clear these up.
C. Have the proposal writers make it clear what they're asking for. Last
year we received a proposal for funding teacher salaries and providing some
materials and training for a summer literacy program. Look back through
that proposal. That materials and training would be included in the
proposal is never made clear until the budget page. Look at the abstract
for that proposal. The information is about the program, but the writer
doesn't make it clear what she is asking for in the abstract nor in the
first section. That's a pretty long reading time to keep us in the dark
about the basic request.
(3). Do the work for your readers rather than have the readers do the work
for you. Proposal writers should tell the reader what is important and then
support that opinion. (In technical terms, that means use topic sentences
and relevant supporting documentation. By extension, these paragraphs
should work together to create a coherent whole. I find that frequently the
proposal writer includes information without connecting the various ideas,
thus creating the appearance of wandering all over the place, inserting
points, but not using them.) What happens when readers try to figure out
what's important is (a) they lose the flow of the overall piece; (b) are apt
to draw incorrect conclusions; and (c) become tired or frustrated with the
entire process. A recent proposal used student comments exclusively as part
of the section on Program Need. There was no narrative to tie these
comments together, leading me as the reader to figure out what points the
writer was trying to make. Consequently, one quote which praised the
program, led me to think: "OK. If it's so good, why are we trying to fix
what ain't broke ?" Think how much more effective the section would have
been if the writer had made connections for the reader, somewhat like:
"Students, such as What's His Name, show great enthusiasm for the course as
the following quote shows. [lnstert quote.] However, despite this
enthusiasm, there is also frustration created by a lack of working,
up -to -date equipment, as The Next Named Student shows in the following
quote. [Insert Quote]."
Another proposal, concerning technology systems, came to the CEDC on October
9. It referenced a report generated by the Career & Technology Evaluation
Committee and indicated that report was available on request. Think of how
much easier the proposal writer would have made the reading act if she (a)
told us in a short appositive what the Career & Evaluation Committee report
was; (b) told us where it was available for request and (c) gave a telephone
number, contact person, or instructions for picking up said report.
Instead, she was asking the committee to do the work rather than doing it
herself. Similarly, the same individual directed the committee to TEA web
pages in one of her proposals (or maybe both, I don't remember). But rather
than send readers to the exact site, she sent them to a more general web
page, making them try and figure out which course description we were to
access.
(4). Follow the guidelines. Last year, and I believe in one of the
Amendments this year, we were asked to fund teachers in schools where the
law prohibited such (Valley Ranch), prompting me to wonder if employees of
CISD read the guidelines. The section in the application on program /project
purpose /need /importance asks that the proposal writer include "the relevance
to one or more of the three approved funding areas promoting literacy,
foreign language, and /or career technology for a skilled workforce." I
Page 3
Jim Witt - CEDC Application Writin
In General Page 4
would suggest CISD personnel look back over the proposals and see if they
can find statements that directly relate to this component. In reading the
applications from last year, I found myself confused about the concept of
literacy (there were conflicting definitions -- or, to be more precise,
conflicting implications -- of literacy in the 2002 proposals, for example).
Even if the statement appears obvious (that English as a Second Language or
Spanish Language instruction is relevant to foreign language programs
because .... ), the fact that it's requested indicates that the CEDC
wants the proposal writer to draw that connection.
Let me emphasize that there is no secret definition that the CEDC is looking
for. Proposals that meet certain definitions of literacy, for example, are
no more privileged than those that meet others. The trick here is for
proposal writers to have a clear definition of terms (such as literacy) and
be able to show how the particular proposal addresses this particular
definition.
(5) Be clear. The lack of clarity is a problem in the proposals that
appears time after time. Last year we received a proposal to fund literacy
teachers. I was unclear about the nature of the proposed program: Was it a
pull -out program or in -class instruction? That confusion should have been
cleared up in the proposal itself, but, because it wasn't, I asked the
spectators to clarify that point. I was told this was not a pull -out
program. Two members of the CEDC have children involved in this program,
which, according to them, is a pull out program. Now I'm really confused
and wonder: Who wants to fund a program that no one can define?
(6) Stay focused. When I read these proposals, I frequently have the
feeling that the authors have decided what they want to ask for and then
tried desperately to fill ten pages so they can apply. The entire proposal
would be more successful if the authors selected several points to make,
related those points, and then backed them up. But all too often the
proposals ramble. For example, a recent proposal for technology systems
wandered for about a half a page discussing targeted occupations in the
area. Only a few of the occupations mentioned had relevance to the
requested materials which raised the question: Why go there? Is the
proposal only for funding targeted occupations? If so, should the CEDC only
fund the software that deals with these? Better to make some kind of point
about these targeted occupations, or ignore them all together.
(7) Use the appendices. These proposals shouldn't be overloaded with
appendices, but sometimes appendices can be used to further explain a
situation or to give added information that may be tangentially related to
the proposal. Last year, for example, we received a request to fund
literacy teachers. The proposal stated that the teachers would have
specialized skills. The CEDC wondered what those skills were. How simple
to put a job description in the appendices.
(8) Look professional. I understand the Superintendent has requested that
teachers be cognizant of their appearance and that they always strive to
look professional. I would extend that concept to the proposals that come
out of the CISD offices. They should also look professional. It's not
going to matter in the overall awarding of funds that part of the cover
sheet is handwritten, but think of how much more professional a typed cover
sheet (except for signatures) appears than a handwritten one. Pages should
be submitted in the correct order, the math should agree, and misspellings
Jim Witt - CEDC Application Writing In General
must be eliminated (which happily happened in the second round of CISD
applications). Professionals use research to make decisions and cite their
sources in a separate reference (which can be an appendix).
(9) Don't oversell. No one expects any program or teacher or piece of
curriculum software to solve all the educational problems of a district.
Sometimes programs appear as part of a continuum rather than as complete
answers in themselves. Just come clean with what these programs are
expected to do and how, if necessary, they fit into an overall educational
plan.
Jim, I don't know if any of this has been helpful. If so, use what you
wish. If not, you know where your delete button is.
Betty Carter
VIA E -MAIL
JW:kb
T H E• C 1 T Y• O F
COPPELL
Date: October 11, 2002
To: CEDC Board Members
From: Jim Witt, City Manager
Subject: Amendment Requirements
MEMORANDUM
On Thursday afternoon I received a call from Dr. Turner of CISD regarding the action of the CEDC on
Wednesday evening. Dr. Turner was very pleasant, but concerned about the rejection regarding the
three amendments and the one grant. Of particular concern to them, obviously, are the amendments to
the three previous grants.
Dr. Turner asked me for some direction regarding the information style and content that needed to be
used in the grants. I thought before I went off on my own I would ask for input from the CEDC
members regarding comments they might like for me to include when I communicate with Dr. Turner
regarding the style and content for grant amendments.
If you have any specific comments, please forward them to me by noon on Wednesday, October 16, so
I can communicate them to Dr. Turner. Also if you would like, you may take one of the proposed
amendments and mark it up and forward it to me through the mail or fax it to me. You may fax your
comments to (972) 304 -7063 or e-mail your comments to j witt @ci . coppell . tx . us.
Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to give me a call at (972) 304-
3672.