Jenny Betz, WestEd: 

Hello hello. Thanks for being here today. We are so glad to have you for our session on proposals for school and district leaders. Today is the first session of five where we’re talking about really high level understanding the landscape, and that’s by talking to some really amazing CDE proposal reviewers, and getting their insights based on decades of experience of reviewing proposals and really coordinating and managing grants from CDE. So we are really, really excited and happy to have you all here. We know folks will be filtering in. We are recording this, so there will be, of course, the recording in a little while, not today probably. But we are glad to have you. 

So as we are getting started, we want to start by taking everyone’s temperature, seeing what’s going on in the room. So what we want to know is how you’re feeling about grant writing and about proposals. When you think of having to write a proposal for a grant or application for whatever program, how are you feeling about it? And what we’d like you to do is first of all, don’t hit enter yet, but we’re going to do a chat waterfall. So again, don’t hit enter yet. Use emojis. You can use words too, but emojis, images, whatever else works for you in the chat to answer how you’re feeling right now about the idea of grant proposals. 

We really have quite a mix, with some smiles, some fright, and all of that is exactly what you should be bringing to this, because that’s exactly how you’re feeling. Herding cats, for sure. Today and over the next five sessions, we will hopefully have you feeling much better about it. And even if you were feeling good about it already, that you’ll feel even better. So to get us started today, I’m going to pass it on to my colleague Shannon. 

Shannon McCullough, WestEd: 

Thanks Jenny, and thank you all again for being here. Before we get started, I just wanted to give you a little bit of context about this series, and about some of the other work that we’re doing. 

This series is part of the California Stronger Connections Technical Assistance Center. And for those of you that aren’t familiar with it, what we’re doing through the Technical Assistance Center is trying to provide support to LEAs throughout the state in a few different focus areas, specifically cultivating safe and healthy learning environments, preventing and responding to acts of violence, bullying, and harassment, looking at unmet mental health needs, implementing safety assessments and corresponding plans, and also promoting positive school climate and culture. And we know that there are a lot of different funding opportunities available throughout the state, connected to a lot of these areas, so we’re trying to put this session in place to help you get into some of that funding. 

So like we said, this is the first session of a series of five, and for the next few weeks we’re going to be holding these on Thursdays. We have session two coming up next Thursday, which is really focusing on getting you started, doing some need sensing, and trying to set you up for success regardless if you have a proposal that you’re looking at or if you’re still feeling things out at this point. 

Sessions three and four are focused on looking at logic models and data, and really taking the data that you have and turning it into a really coherent and usable narrative for a wide variety of different funding opportunities. And then in our last session, we’re going to try to pull everything from these sessions together. We’ll look at some real examples. We’ll be able to provide you with a little bit of feedback if you have things that you’re getting started, and push the little baby birds out of the nest and have you go fly and write some proposals. 

And before we get to our amazing panel, we want to talk a little bit about the major goals for the session today. Like we said, we’re going to hear directly from some folks at CDE that regularly review these proposals. They’re going to tell you a little bit about what makes a great one. We’re also going to learn a little about some of the common mistakes that folks make as they’re putting these together, and how to address those mistakes. And then we’ll think a little bit about how to decide whether a funding opportunity is right for you and for your school or district. 

And you might see a lot of us here in the background, but this is the WestEd team. Rebeca, who was very excited in her emoji about writing and working on grants, is leading our Stronger Connections team here. Jenny and I are going to be your facilitators throughout these five sessions, and Lora is the brains behind everything, making sure the machine moves in the background. So I’m going to pass it back to Jenny, and she’s going to introduce our amazing panelists for you. 

Jenny Betz, WestEd: 

Awesome. Thanks Shannon. We also have from our team here, Laura Buckner, who also is amazing. 

So. Rather than hearing just from Shannon and I, which is not that exciting today, what really is exciting are our amazing panelists. We have three panelists from the CDE. Each of them here, you can see some of the grants that they work on, but let me just introduce them, and then we’ll get right into the panel. So, Teri. Teri Alves is an educator and education programs consultant at CDE, dedicated to advancing equity and expanding opportunities for all students. With a background as a teacher administrator and experience working across nearly every aspect of district systems. Teri brings a practical understanding of how policy, programs, and classrooms connect in order to support student success. Teri currently supports California programs such as LCSSP, the Middle School Foundation Academy, Perkins Grant, and the CTE Initiative Grant, and we have the lovely opportunity to work with Teri quite a bit, so thanks for being here, Teri. 

And then we have of course Hilva Chan. Hilva’s also an education program consultant in the school health and safety office at CDE. Hilva has over 30 years of experience coordinating and managing programs, promoting youth resilience, wellness, at both the state and local levels, and has managed several federal grants addressing school safety, positive school climate, and student mental health. She’s currently the project director for Project Cal-Well, a mental health initiative. She oversees the statewide implementation of the California School Climate Health and Learning Surveys, or CalSCHLS, or you may know it by the California Healthy Kids Survey, which is part of it. She also, of course, oversees the Stronger Connections Grant, which is why we’re all here today, and thank you Hilva for doing that and for opening this to other folks as well. And then has a history of managing plenty of other projects. 

Then we have the lovely Lisa Clark-Devine, who along with Teri and Hilva we have worked with as well. Lisa is an experienced education programs consultant at CDE, where she’s served for over a decade. Her career in education began as a high school guidance counselor working in both rural and urban settings. She later joined the Nevada Department of Ed as a education programs professional, where she supported school counselors and advanced CTE pathways, or career technical education pathways. Most recently, Lisa has been supporting the California Community Schools Partnership program, which you may have heard of, which fosters collaborative student-centered learning environments that support the whole child and strengthen school community connections across the state. Lisa’s also worked on LCSSP and the California Career Pathways Trust, and all sorts of good things. 

So really, today you have the three best people to be giving you some insights and sharing their experiences and brilliance with you. So Teri, Hilva, and Lisa, thank you so much for being here. Now we’re going to start with Teri here first, and we’ll go through a set of questions, and we may be asking some follow-up questions. So to start, Teri, can you walk us through what really happens behind the scenes when a CDE grant proposal is reviewed? And you’re on mute. 

Teri Alves, CDE: 

Oh, perfect. Thank you so much for reminding me, and thanks for everybody for joining us. So I’m going to talk about a little bit of the review process. So the applications come in, they’re logged in, we have our fiscal analysts log everything, and we keep track of all of those things that are coming in, and just make sure that they’re complete, make sure everything’s attached in the right way. So many times, we have to reach out to you because there might be a form missing, or sometimes there’s a page missing. So we always want to do a thorough review of how things come in. And then we’ve got timelines. I think it’s important that when you get an RFA, to look at the timelines within the RFA, but also look at the timelines that come out after you submit your application. So usually, about, we give ourselves two to three weeks, I would say. 

There are some, like I’m working on one now, I had one week to review 25. So sometimes, depending on when the RFA comes out… Because those timelines sometimes are out of our control, and we just have to make accommodations for that. But we try to give the readers at least two to three weeks, because after we read, and we make sure if there’s a ten-point difference, we get another reader in, and then we have to review that with our administration, and then we talk about who we’re going to grant the award to. 

I think another thing that we really want to talk about is the rubric. Even though we take for granted what the rubric is, but it is really the roadmap. So make sure that when you read the RFA, and before you turn in your application, you go through the rubric again. And it’s not just writing to the narrative, but it’s also writing to the rubric. Make sure that you use the rubric language. If there’s certain words that pop out, make sure that it’s clear wherever you’re writing something, it aligns with that section of the narrative, and make sure that you anticipate how the reviewers are going to use that. So, 30 points, 20 points, five points, something like that. 

So again, I think the most important thing about the rubric, and everything we do, we compare. We read the application, we compare it to the rubric. So you’re writing to the rubric, and you’re writing to the narrative. 

Jenny Betz, WestEd: 

Thank you Teri, and thanks for just jumping in and getting us started. And a a note to everyone who’s watching and listening, today we have the opportunity to have these three wonderful people, so really the rest of our time together is going to be about what they’re sharing. But you’ll probably have lots of questions along the way. So we’re not doing a traditional Q&A at the end of this. Instead, write down, keep notes of your own questions. You can put them in the chat and we’ll keep them, but we probably won’t be able to get to them today. And then after each session, including this one, we will have a follow-up discussion hour the very next morning. 

So tomorrow morning we’re having the first one. You can come with all your questions or ones that you think about overnight when you’re trying to go to sleep. And just for being here today, we’ll be sending the link out very, very soon, so you’ll have the calendar invite and all of that. So just wanted to give you a heads-up before we keep on going. So Lisa, I got you up next. What else would you add to that about what really happens behind the scenes once CDE gets those proposals or applications? 

Lisa Clark-Devine, CDE: 

Yeah, I agree with everything Teri shared with you. And good afternoon everybody. For you in Northern California, I hope you’re enjoying the rain. It’s my favorite weather. 

So it takes us about a week to log all these applications, because like Teri said, there’s so many attachments and so many things that we have to check before we even assign readers. And during that process, we have reader conferences with all of our readers to make sure they’re calibrated so they know what the program staff is looking for when they read these applications. So we make sure we’re calibrated, that they have consensus. Most of the time we use CDE employees to review applications. There are some grant programs out there that use outside reviewers, but like Teri said, the scoring rubric is critical. If you follow the scoring rubric, it’s the same scoring rubric the readers follow as well, so it’s very transparent. 

And within the scoring rubric, look at the language that is being used in the different buckets, because you’ll see it’ll give you hints. Read between the lines, right, and get the hints of, “What are they really looking for here?” And I would say be very concise. Remember, we read lots of applications, and so we’re pounding these really fast. For cohort four, community schools, I myself read over a hundred and fifty applications by myself in a three-week period. So organization is just so critical, because we have to go fast to meet our timelines so we can get the money out to y’all. And so yeah, I would just really highlight, read the rubric, be concise, follow the rubric. 

Jenny Betz, WestEd: 

Awesome. Thank you, Lisa. And it just makes me think, we started with the chat waterfall of, “How’s everybody feeling about writing the things?” And for you all, getting it ready is a whole thing, right? But then you’re just waiting until people send them in, and then your work really begins, right? So that idea of, “Oh my goodness, so many in such little time” actually brings me to you, Hilva. So what actually makes it easy or even pleasurable for you to read these and review these, especially when you have so many? 

Hilva Chan, CDE: 

Thanks Jenny. So hi everyone. So to me, the applications that’s easiest to read are the one that score the best. Because they’re so clear. They’re very logical, they’re clear, they’re concise, they’re thorough. Right? So we can easily go from the need of the school to the proposed project, and the budget supports the proposed project. Everything makes sense, right? So where we can just easily… I totally echo what Teri and Lisa said. According to rubrics, right? So when we’re reading a lot of applications, it’s much easier for us to find information exactly what’s supposed to be. Right? So you write it in the order that the rubric says. A, B, C. Just follow exactly. That will be easier for us to find, right? And then because I cannot give you score when information is not there. So it’s super important that you just follow the rubrics really thoroughly, and then make sure that everything match and is logical. 

Teri Alves, CDE: 

Yep, those are great ideas. 

Jenny Betz, WestEd: 

Yeah, yeah. Sorry, I was trying to find my unmute button there, but thank you Hilva. I think that’s so important, right? And I think that’s going to come up quite a bit in the next 40 minutes too. Teri, what would you add to that? 

Teri Alves, CDE: 

So I think one of the things that’s really important is that you tell a story. I think that the voice of the community is really, really important. One of the quotes that I like to use is, “Behind every data point is a student, a classroom, and a community with a story to tell you.” So I think it’s important that when you write your application, I always suggest having an English teacher read it, because English teachers, A, they’re great editors, so they’ll help you keep it concise for sure, and they’ll make sure that things make sense and they flow. 

One of the things I wanted to do is give you an example, so you can kind of think about this. Sometimes we get data points… And I think Lisa and Hilva might relate to this. During our last grant application cycle, I saw that one of the LEAs did a whole spreadsheet on data from DataQuest. Then they took that same data and put it into a graph. So you could really see it illustrated what was happening, but it really didn’t tie to the activities, it didn’t really tie to the budget. So let me give you an example of a couple things that I thought were really good, and short, concise, but uses data. 

Last year, only 42% of our middle school students reported feeling confident about their future career options. After launching our exploration pilot, that number rose to 78%, showing how early exposure to hands-on learning can transform uncertainty into ambition. And then I’ll do another real quick one. “Before the new STEAM academy started, my son wasn’t interested in school at all,” shared Maria Lopez, a parent at Jefferson Middle School. “Now he talks about becoming an engineer, and he’s one of 85% of students who now say the program helped them see a real future for themselves.” So not only are you hearing from the parent, you’re hearing from the student, and you’re getting a sense of how important this funding is for that community. 

Jenny Betz, WestEd: 

Thanks Teri. And it’s not just fluff, right? That actually, you could show that in a couple big charts that take up half of your page limit, right? But those sort of actually having a narrative and speaking to it, to me, conveys it much better. And then you were talking about how that one example that “Oh, chart, great. Data visualization, awesome. But wait a minute, it didn’t align to anything you’re talking about.” And that makes me think about, and I’m coming to you Hilva, what are some of the most common mistakes or pitfalls that keep proposals from being funded? And then what recommendations do you have maybe to solve some of that or fix it? 

Hilva Chan, CDE: 

Yeah. I think we’ve said it several times already, right? So the biggest mistake I see is that did not read the RFP thoroughly, they didn’t really write according to the rubrics. And sometimes people write too much or too little in a particular section. Let me give you an example too. So we have a 10 page limit. Total points is a hundred points, right? So I would assume that if we asking you to write about the needs statement, tell us about your community, your school, put in some student demographics and some need data. If you give me, if it’s 20 points of a hundred points, I would expect around two page. If you put in five page or four page, then even though it’s an excellent write-up, most I can give you is 20 points. But you’re taking away space on what you can contribute to other sections, right? So you really have to strategize and think about, “Well, how do I actually plan how much to write?” 

I’ve also seen people that have… Either it’s a 10 page or 15 page limit. They only use half or two thirds of the page limit. And then you can find in some sections, it’s not a lot of information. It’s not detailed enough, it’s not thorough enough, right? The thing though is that even I can see a huge need, I can’t give you points where it’s not there. So if you don’t tell me, if you’re not thoroughly responsive to all the problems that we are supposed to score, even though I think this is a huge need there, I know you can do it, I can’t score when it’s just not there. So I think this is really important. And as Teri mentioned, right, data? Don’t just list the data in the tables. When we say ask for data, maybe for example on chronic absenteeism, on a suspension rate, you need to think about how the data support my needs. Not just listing them in table. They take up a lot of space, right? If it doesn’t tie to a need that could be addressed by a proposed project or solution, it won’t help. Right? 

The other things I see is that the budget doesn’t really reflect what you talk about in the project. You probably talk about, “Oh, we are trying to hire some additional clinicians who really help support students,” right? And in the budget, we don’t see the clinicians there. We see something totally different there. Then, “Wait, where does that come from? We’ve never even seen that in the narrative.” That is when it’s not clear at all again. And the one final point I have is that we always ask for objectives, and they’ve got to be very specific. Those specific could be smart goals. Very specific, very measurable, right? So an example, I say, “Hey, by June 26, ABC or CDE district will improve school candidates by 10% as reflected or as measured by the CHKS.” So you have a time factor there, you have a way that you measure it, and you have very specific goals. So, yeah. 

Jenny Betz, WestEd: 

Thank you Hilva. You know, thinking about it like that, how even the percentages of, “Oh.” Once you hear it, “Oh, right. 10 pages, 20%, two pages is what I should spend on it.” But I don’t know that, had I not worked with you all, that would come to my mind, because I might want to focus more on whatever other part of the proposal. So yeah, thank you for bringing that up. And then just to be telling people, we can tell when things don’t match up. You’re reading so many of them, right? So be consistent and make sure that you’re really connecting all those things. Thank you. And Lisa, I’m going to move to you too. What are some of those common pitfalls, and what recommendations do you have to deal with them? 

Lisa Clark-Devine, CDE: 

I lost my mouse on my screen, sorry. I’m going to agree with Hilva, look at that RFA. We spend hours developing these RFAs, and every bit of information in those RFAs are there for a reason, and we get lots of questions in our email boxes, and a lot of time I’m like, “That’s on page 30. That’s on page 26. That’s on page…” Right? And so do a Control+Find. If you’re thinking, “Oh, can I do X, Y, and Z?” Do a Find and see if it’s in the RFA before you start emailing us. 

And the data piece is important, because there’s a lot. We kind of get a flood of data, right? Make sure the data that you’re sharing is actually data that relates to your story. If you’re going to be talking about how you want to address chronic absenteeism and engagement, then those are the data points you want to share. I really don’t care about your CAS scores if we’re looking at chronic absenteeism, that’s sort of an after effect, right? You’re not going to improve CAS scores until the kids are in school. So think of it like a logical order. 

Another thing is, a lot of readers, some read their applications holistically and some do not. So I would not assume that because you put a piece of information somewhere in the application that the reader is going to spend time finding it. Again, I read over a hundred and fifty applications in three weeks. I don’t have time to go through every application and spend an hour and a half on each application and start digging and finding information. So really, if we ask you something in a prompt, answer it in that prompt. Don’t make us go digging. Because you’ll lose points that way too. 

Also, make sure that if you’re applying for a grant like the community schools grant, the community schools grant affects all aspects of your school community. Make sure you have buy-in from those people. With community schools you’re changing the way we’re doing education, so you better have principal support, you should have support from your school board, because you’re transforming the way you do education with community schools. 

So think about how big the grant is, what the focus of the grant is, and make sure that the people who will make those decisions are on board with what you’re writing in the application. It’s unfortunate when I have a board that forces a district to pull out of a grant because they weren’t on board with the direction that the grant was leading. Breaks my heart. I don’t like taking money away or not giving money away. We’re in the business of giving you money to do the great things that you do on the field. 

And then another thing we see, and I’ll just say it’s kind of annoying, is I get an application and it’s like the exact same application I read the last application, the last application before. So I’m going to use charter schools as an example. Charter schools, they’re their own LEA, so you’ll have a charter school organization that submits multiple applications. Well, I strategically have the same readers read those applications, because I know they’re duplicative. 

So it doesn’t really help your story, because no matter what, every school community is different, every school community has different needs. Even within a school district, within a charter school organization. And so really make sure that your applications are unique, and really tells the story of your particular school. 

Jenny Betz, WestEd: 

Thanks, Lisa. And Lisa, can I go back for one clarifying question? When you talked about not everyone reviews them holistically, what does that mean holistically versus not? 

Lisa Clark-Devine, CDE: 

So if a prompt says, “Can you tell us about your demographics and juvenile justice population?” and you say, “Oh, well I actually covered that in section B,” don’t sit there and say, “Go look at section B.” No, answer the question where we ask you the question, essentially. Yeah. 

Jenny Betz, WestEd: 

Yeah. Look at everyone nodding, and I’m like, “Oh, I probably would just say, ‘Hey, go look there.'” Good call. 

Lisa Clark-Devine, CDE: 

Yeah. Sometimes we ask questions that seem to look repetitive. 

Jenny Betz, WestEd: 

Yeah. 

Lisa Clark-Devine, CDE: 

For example, I run the Purple Star school designation program, and I have two questions in there that are very, very similar, almost verbatim similar except for one word change. So the first question is, “The point of contact has to participate in professional development.” The next question is, “The point of contact has to deliver professional development.” So make sure in that first question that you’re talking about what professional development the point of contact is going to attend, and then you need to show how you’re going to take that information and train the trainer type of model, and you’re going to educate your school community on what you have learned. 

Jenny Betz, WestEd: 

Awesome, thank you. Those are all great, great insights, and I’m going to actually pass it over to Shannon to continue on this. But before I go, thank you Teri, Hilva, and Lisa. 

Shannon McCullough, WestEd: 

Thanks Jenny. So a lot of what we’ve been hearing is focused on having a clear application, a clear proposal, and a coherent proposal. I’m wondering, Lisa, if you can give us any more tips and tricks for making sure that these proposals are clear and coherent? 

Lisa Clark-Devine, CDE: 

Yeah. I hope you’ve heard the message, “Use the rubric,” because again, use the rubric, read between the lines, and search for what those terms are that are going to distinguish a low scoring answer to a high scoring answer. 

Have a realistic budget. And by realistic budget, also provide details in your budget. Don’t just say, “Oh, certificated staff are going to spend a hundred and fifty thousand dollars.” Well, who and what is that person going to be doing, and how are they supporting the program, the application that you’re trying to establish? 

Another thing is, be clear on some of the budgetary restrictions, your allowable non-allowables. Most grants will not allow you to supplant, so you can’t have a percentage of your principal’s salary in a budget, because your principal has to be there regardless of the grant, and they’re already at a 1.0 FTE. So you can’t be like, “Oh, now I’m going to charge 10% to this grant program because it’s allowed.” No, that’s called supplanting. So be clear on those kind of things, because they raise flags for us. 

And then make sure you check consistency. With the Pathways Trust, the Pathways Trust grant was a very large narrative piece, and what ended up happening is you could tell that they parceled out questions to different people, and then when the application came together, it was a garbled mess. I could not follow what in the world was going on. And then they actually had conflicting data points in their answers, because they had different people answering different sections of the application. So if you are going to parcel out pieces, make sure there’s somebody to make sure that when it’s all put together in a complete package, that it’s logical and makes sense and you don’t have contradicting statements throughout, because that also raises some flags. 

And again, with data, put data where it’s appropriate. Don’t just spout out a bunch of data. We all can spout out a bunch of data. Some of it matters and some of it doesn’t. And another thing is, don’t waste your space. You have valuable space, or real estate, as I call it, on your application. Don’t waste space giving us information that’s not related to what you’re trying to do. 

Shannon McCullough, WestEd: 

Awesome. Thank you so much, Lisa. I love the point about making sure, if you’re having folks write separate sections, to have someone go over it. I feel like that makes sense theoretically, right? That we would have people who are experts in different things do those different sections, especially when we’re all crunched for time, but going back and reading it and seeing if it’s actually a whole coherent document makes a ton of sense. Teri, is there anything you want to add? 

Teri Alves, CDE: 

So I was going to spend time on that, Lisa, so I appreciate you bringing that up. Let me illustrate that a little bit in terms of disconnection. I think one of the main things that we look for is coherence in an application, but we also can tell a little bit about how things are going to happen after the grant is funded. So if you see a big disconnect between the budget and the narrative, then you’re going, “Uh-oh, this is going to happen during the grant oversight as well.” It’s super important, and I can’t emphasize that enough, that those communication pathways start early on in the application process. I read a really amazing grant, the narrative was just so on point, the data was right there. It just was a beautiful, almost 95%. 

Then I got to the budget, and the budget was completely disassociated from the narrative. In fact, they were going to fund a drug prevention counseling program, and that was one of the major budget items, but nowhere in their grant… And I even did a controlled fund. It’s like, “Did I miss it because I’m reading so many grants?” Nowhere in their narrative did they talk about that being an issue in their community. So here they are funding something that wasn’t even talked about in their data point. So again, make sure there’s a coherent and logical framework. Again, I always, always go on and on about having English teachers read the rubric, or read the rubric and read the application. I think that’s really important. I wanted to give you an idea, getting back to the story, and give you another example of just how poignant some of these grant applications and how memorable they are, just because you hear the voice of the community. 

So I’m going to quote from one of them. “In a small agricultural town,” and I’m just going to put a Menorah, I don’t know if I changed it, “many parents work long hours in the fields, and nearly 70% of those families do not have access to reliable internet at home. For years, students have struggled to see pathways beyond their community, not because of lack of talent, but because of lack of opportunity. The proposed MSFA grant program will bridge that gap, bringing career exploration, mentorship, hands-on learning to students who have never had those doors open before.” So there’s no statistics on how many parents are in this situation. It just says nearly 70% of the families. So you get a sense of how much this community is going to use these funds to help those families and those students succeed. 

So make sure that the activities match the data. We’ve talked about that. Another thing I want to just briefly touch on is research. So many times you’ll see these amazing quotes on research articles, or they’re going to implement something that works 95% of the time in this community, and there’s a citation on it, but yet it doesn’t tie to the activities that they’re using. So if you’re going to take the time to research something… I mean, I’m an article junkie. I will read all the articles and I love it, but make sure that it’s relevant to your narrative. And I think that’s all for that one I have. 

Lisa Clark-Devine, CDE: 

You know what, I wanted to add something. Some people like to put hyperlinks in their applications. Please know readers are not required to open up those links. So if there’s something really important that you want to get across, you can link it, but know the reader may not get to it. So whatever that point is, make sure you summarize it in your narrative. 

Shannon McCullough, WestEd: 

That’s a perfect segue to our last little piece, Lisa. If you had to give one hot tip of insider advice for all of the folks here, what is your one or two key takeaways that you want folks to have from attending this session? Lisa, you already started us off, so you’re next. 

Lisa Clark-Devine, CDE: 

Yeah. So I would say for me, and I think a lot of readers, we actually start with the budget. I start with the budget, I look at the budget. It sets the playing field of what I’m about to look for and what I’m going to absorb. So make sure your budget has some details. Don’t just say, “Oh, we’re going to spend $10,000 on books and supplies.” What books and supplies and why, kind of thing. If you’re going to have a new employee, you say, “Oh, we’re going to hire a counselor,” tell us it’s a new counselor. Otherwise we’re going to think, are you supplanting? 

So just make sure you got a good budget. I know the budget isn’t usually scored very high, but it sets the tone for the reader, and so it will affect your score if your budget’s not so great. Because like I said, a lot of us start with the budget first. And another thing with the budget is, consider sustainability. Most of our grants have sustainability clauses within them, so whatever you’re instituting, keep in mind when you build your budget and whatever you want to purchase or do, make sure that you have a plan on how to sustain that, especially if it’s going to work. 

Shannon McCullough, WestEd: 

Thank you Lisa. All right Hilva, what’s your hot tip? 

Hilva Chan, CDE: 

I would say don’t assume the reviewer knows the topic. So you need to write in a way that just… You need to explain the acronyms, right? Because we recruit readers from within the CDE and plus outside too, so you just cannot assume. So you have to write it assuming people know nothing about your program, nothing about what you talked about. So you have to explain it clearly. So I would say if you share that with somebody who knows nothing about your proposed project, just if it makes sense, if people do not understand that, then we probably don’t understand too. 

And the other thing, I think, is make sure when you write it, it has to be realistic. Meaning that I would assume you want it to be funded, and I would assume that someone has to do it, right? So if you write it in a way that is so aggressive, all the goals are so high bar, not feasible to be implemented, then you get stuck, because now you get funded and you have to do it, but it’s just really difficult to do. Then [inaudible 00:41:54] right? So unless you just [inaudible 00:41:56] to write it, but you’ve got to make it realistic. So whoever’s able to do it, because the goals are realistic, the budget makes sense, you can actually run it by the budget you provided, instead of, oh, you start running out funds. It’s like, “Whoa.” We don’t think about this, right? Now that you got stuck about not having enough funding, the goals are starting too high, timeline’s not very realistic, then it’s not fun to implement a project like that. Yeah. 

Shannon McCullough, WestEd: 

So I love your tip about having someone unfamiliar read your proposal. I feel like my husband’s probably very sick of reading, might be an expert now at this point, because I always ask him to read these things too. All right, Teri. Last [inaudible 00:42:44] tip. 

Teri Alves, CDE: 

Oh. I’m glad Hilva touched upon grant writers, and there are many districts that have amazing grant writers, and there’s no doubt about that, and it’s just such a benefit to the whole community when you have a grant writer. They understand how to do it, they’re proficient at it. But when a principal or teacher writes about a new academy and the chances that are going to come to their students because of these academies, the reader can’t help but feel that emotion. So even if a grant writer is writing your grant, I would definitely have the principal or the teachers that are going to be doing this grant, or who already are doing some of the grant, to retool some of the language. Because I just don’t think, no matter how great the grant writer is, that authentic voice comes through. 

Another two things that I want to bring up. Reach out to us. Reach out to CDE. Sometimes we get really busy and it’s hard for us to get right back, but I think the LCSSP grantees will testify that I do the best I can to talk through something that they’re thinking about. Supplanting issues, Lisa, like you talked about, or tweaking some language in the narrative that you might want to keep out. So it just doesn’t hurt to reach out to us. Also, if you’re writing a grant application, we have passed funding profiles. Reach out to colleagues. You might say, “Oh my goodness, LAUSD had five of these grants. Let me reach out to a program director and see if they’ll…” Most of the time, I know when I was in the field, if I could share something that I’ve written, my WASP reports or my charter renewals or anything that I’ve written that’s passed and done well, I share with others. That’s one great thing about educators, is we like to share. 

Another thing, I think, that you should look at is 5000s, the object code 5000 services. In a budget, if you’re taking the majority of your funds and you are just passing it on through for other people to handle, then we really look at those things that Lisa was bringing up, sustainability. Are you building capacity, lasting capacity for students and communities, in your area? Because most of the supplemental funds that you get are to build the safety nets and build systems, and just make sure that not too much of that is going to a service so that you’re not training your own and really impacting that community for a long period of time. 

Lisa Clark-Devine, CDE: 

Yeah, I just wanted to jump in a little bit on the grant writer thing. Don’t feel that if you have a grant writer, it’s not a bad thing. If you don’t have a grant writer, it’s not a bad thing either. We do take those things into consideration, especially for our small and rural communities. We know you guys don’t have the money or the capacity, and it’s okay. It’s not going to hurt you. I just want to make sure you know it won’t hurt you. 

Teri Alves, CDE: 

Grant… Grammar, spelling, we don’t take off for that. You’ll notice in the rubric, there’s nothing like, “Oh, there’s a run-on.” I mean, it doesn’t help when it’s… Don’t make a whole paragraph a sentence. I’m not suggesting that. But we don’t give points for grammar and things like that, so that was perfect. 

Shannon McCullough, WestEd: 

And actually, thinking about the grant writing conversation or the grant writer conversation, can anyone… maybe Lisa, I think you were talking about supplanting earlier. Can you talk about the use of some of the funds specifically for funding grant writers or grant directors? 

Lisa Clark-Devine, CDE: 

So most of our grants, you cannot fund a grant writer with our grant applications and our dollars. That would have to come from somewhere else. 

Shannon McCullough, WestEd: 

And how about a grant director? 

Lisa Clark-Devine, CDE: 

So I wouldn’t use grant director as a job title, because that’s probably not what they’re actually doing. I would use more terms like professional development. I have one that is higher… They keep on this… It’s like a grant writing team, but what they’re actually doing is they’re not doing grant writing. What they’re doing is they’re helping the LEA implement the implementation plan that they came up with. So it’s more of a professional development, coaching type thing, not an actual work writing grants to seek money. 

So you need to be clear about that, and think about the terms that you’re putting in, right? Don’t use a lot of jargon. Jargon and buzzwords, that just fills up pages and doesn’t give us, really, anything of substance. 

Teri Alves, CDE: 

Let me just add really quick on the grant writing, because I work with the state comptroller’s office in my particular grant, that is the source of a couple of audit findings. The auditor will ask for the MOU or the contract or the invoice, whatever you’re paying services, and if there’s anything to do with writing the grant proposal, they’ll invoice for that back. 

Shannon McCullough, WestEd: 

Thank you, that helps clarify a lot of what some of us were wondering. Awesome. Thanks. 

And our last little piece here is just a reminder that as part of Stronger Connections, we have a bunch of other opportunities for you to participate. There’s an LEA peer network all focused on participatory data use practices, monthly wellness sessions, and a ton of other webinars. You can use the QR code here, or you can just go directly to strongerconnections.wested.org. I believe there’s probably a little link for you in the chat too. 

And we just wanted to thank you all again, and thank you to our panelists for participating with us. If you have any additional questions for us, the email is here on the screen and in the chat for you, and thanks again.