Grants Committee 2025

 

All Grants Committee members need to use a Google/GMail login to access Grants Committee files.  If you're a HHEF Board member, this will be your hhef.org credentials.  If you are not a Board member, we will have reached out to you for your personal GMail login.

​​

All Grants Committee members will receive an email invitation to access their own private scoring sheet.  Use this sheet to record all of your scores.  Each sheet will show a RED background on its title and every cell that needs to be updated.  Once the sheet has been completely filled out, all RED will disappear.  The scoring rubric is built-in to the scoring sheet.​​

​​

There are buttons for all links at the top of the left column on this window.

​

Use the "Access Grants" button to open a tab which will include all 14 of the redacted review packets.  Each review packet includes the redacted grant application, the budget, the principal approval, and any other attachments included by the applicant.

​​

As always, each of you will read and rate ALL applications.

​

HOW TO BEGIN

• Familiarize yourself with the 2025 ILG guidelines that the teachers used to submit their requests.  Use the "ILG Guidelines" button to access this document.

• Check the Reader Assignment table above to see which grant(s) you are named as a Primary or Alternate reader (see section below - GRANT READERS for more details about these roles)

• When you read and rate the Innovative Learning Grant applications please keep in mind that the DCED (the state agency that approves our EITC participation) is looking for applications that clearly describe the innovative program of study or curriculum. Your scores should be based on the quality of innovation that is clearly and completely described as the authors address each item of the application form. Winning applications must be innovative and well written. A poorly written application, no matter how innovative or novel, should not yield a winning score. Conversely, a well-written application that does not reflect an innovative set of ideas should not be scored high.

• Length of answer (long or short) and formatting should not be a consideration in scoring. You are looking for concise, clear, fully developed answers.

• Each PDF contains the same information – the redacted application form, budget, technology (if applicable) & principal approvals, and any additional supporting information the applicants chose to share. (If you are inclined to print out these applications for review, be sure to check how many “addendum” pages are included. Some applications have a lot of supporting materials – just trying to save you paper and ink).

• If the applicant included web links in their application we tried to spot those and made them clickable in the PDFs.

• After reading the submission in its entirety, find the grant tab on the scoring spreadsheet that corresponds to the application and enter your scores. The red on each page will disappear when you complete it. You're done when all the red is gone!

  • You will give a 10 (highest) to 1 (lowest) score for each criterion. Whole numbers only.

  • The score fields that needed to be filled are highlighted in red and your weighted average will be calculated automatically. Totals can be found in cell F13.

  • These weighted averages will be collected and will be the basis for the panel’s collective initial score. This initial score will be used as the starting point for deliberations on March 6th.

  • Note: at the bottom of both the new and continuation rubrics there are non-scored criteria for technology and guest professionals. These are required to be filled in if applicants are requesting over $500 for technology and/or outside professionals.
    Your responses to these criteria are either yes, no or maybe. (see section below - GUEST PROFESSIONAL & TECHNOLOGY REQUESTS -for more details)

• Please make sure you have completed scoring all grants (with no red showing on any tab) on or before March 4th at 5:00 pm​

​

GRANT READERS
There will be applications for which you will serve as the "primary reader". As primary reader you will be responsible for presenting an overview of the grant content, goals and budget. You will argue the pros or cons for potential funding that will lead to further discussion among other panelists. Alternate readers will be asked to step into the primary reader role if the lead reader is unexpectedly unable to attend the panel meeting.

​

GUEST PROFESSIONAL & TECHNOLOGY REQUESTS
For those applications requesting outside professionals or artists in residence, there is no numerical score to be averaged into the final score. Applicants are required to provide sufficient information regarding the qualifications of outside professionals and the connection to project goals.  Similarly, for those applications requesting technology, please rate the essential nature of the requested technology as fully essential, maybe essential or not essential. Keep in mind that David Weber has approved all technology requests. It is our task to ensure that the technology as described in the application is essential to achieving projects goals and positive student outcomes.

​

OUR TIME TOGETHER ON MARCH 6th

​For each ILG application we will use the same review process we've used in the past. Here’s an overview of what to expect:

1. All panelist scores will be populated and averages established by the beginning of the meeting (from scores submitted in advance). We will start the meeting by sharing the spreadsheet that shows each grant and overall scoring.

2. We will begin with grant #1. The facilitator will share the grants overall score and then the primary reader will provide an overview of the grant and discuss the pros and cons of the application. Questions and group discussions follow.  Suzy will take notes of the discussion.

3. Panelists are asked to either confirm their original average score or adjust their original score as a result of the discussion.

4. Each panelist shares their final score for the application and it will be input in the table that is shared on the screen.

5. The final overall application score will be automatically calculated as the average of the panelists’ final scores.

6. The applications are ranked in order of their scores with an eye to equality among schools, grades and funding categories.

​

Thank you for volunteering to serve on this important committee. Best of luck with your reading and review!