Frequently Asked Questions

1.  What is balanced literacy?
2.  Are intelligent students always good readers?
3.  What can I do about word substitution?
4.  How did the BRP become the RALP?
5. What is Dibels?
6. My son struggles with multi-syllable words. Any suggestions?
7. What does a competitive funding proposal look like?
8. What suggestions for my grant proposal do you have?
9. What topics must be addressed in a grant proposal?
10. What topics should not be stressed in a grant proposal?
11. What resources can I use to document the quality of the instructional interventions used in my proposal?
12. This is my first grant, what suggestions do you have?
13. Can I purchase your products with a school purchase order?

Have a question? Send us an email and we'll get right back to you.

1.  M.P. (Arizona) wrote:  I attended a meeting for parents of children with learning disabilities and we were given suggestions for supporting reading instruction for our children. The presenter told us it is important that our children receive research-based instruction with a strong emphasis on phonemic awareness and direct, systematic, intensive instruction in phonics, particularly during kindergarten and grade 1. I visited with my child’s teacher and asked about the reading instruction. I was told, “At this school we do phonics and a lot more, we call it balanced literacy.” My question:  What is “balanced literacy,” and why was it not mentioned in the meeting about research-based instruction? top             

A very timely question that takes in a lot of history. There have been, over the years, two general instructional approaches that have governed reading education. They have gone by many names, but today they are generally known as Phonics and Whole Language approaches. These approaches to reading instruction reflect very different underlying philosophies and stress very different skills.  The philosophy underlying the Whole Language approach is that reading is a natural process, much like learning to speak, and that children exposed to a great deal of  text will naturally become literate without explicit instruction in the rules and conventions of printed text.  The Phonics approach is quite different— Phonics advocates argue that in order to learn to read, most children require a great deal of systematic, explicit instruction in the rules, or the “code” of printed text. The Phonics, or decoding approach, is often considered very “direct” and the whole language more about experiences with interesting text.

              A young child in a Whole Language classroom is provided with simple, predictable and repetitive text—frequently the text is already familiar to the child, making it that much easier to understand. Emphasis in a Whole Language classroom is not placed on reading precision and accuracy, but on comprehension and appreciation—children are not expected to read the text verbatim, they are allowed to insert and substitute words as long as the story still makes sense, and as long as the child is understanding the gist of the story. 

              In a Phonics classroom, by contrast, emphasis is placed on reading precision, and children are encouraged to read the words exactly as they appear on the page. Children are explicitly taught “rules” about the way words are written and spelled, and they are taught spelling-sound relationships. After a teacher provides an explicit lesson in a particular sound-symbol relationship, e.g., the “ssssssss” sound for the symbol “s,” the child is presented with words that use the “s” sound, and later, text that contains many words that use the “s” sound.  The text is called “decodable” text because the student has been taught the phonics code that allows them to decode all words that have the sounds they been taught.

              A “balanced literacy approach” is usually considered a combination of Phonics and Whole Language.” Some skeptics view the term, “balanced literacy,” as a political rather than a scientific entity. They see the term as one that will offer some support to all approaches to reading instruction. Some view “balanced literacy” as a new name for Whole Language, which fell into disrepute, when a series of national research summaries did not validate “Whole Language” instruction. The lack of recognition of Balanced Literacy in the research reports and associated Congressional recommendations may also be tied to a lack of agreement on the definition. There is massive variability from school to school on just when and how different reading instruction approaches are blended together to form the “balanced” approach.    

       Sebastian Wren, in summarizing the issues, noted, “The most troubling aspect of the debate over Phonics, Whole Language, and balanced approaches to reading instruction is that the interest and debate almost always focuses on the lessons and activities that a teacher should deliver (and the order in which those lessons and activities should be delivered)....... Lesson plans can be thought out in broad strokes in advance, but if instruction is to be truly effective, lesson plans need to be constantly revised to accommodate new assessment information, and lessons need to be customized to suit the learning needs of individual students. The Great Debate over reading instruction does not help teachers to develop more assessment-driven, individualized instruction strategies…… an end to the Reading Wars could not be more desirable, but the debate will not end as long as the focus of reading instruction is on the teacher and the activities and the materials. The focus needs to shift to the student and the individual learning needs that can be revealed through assessment. Only when all teachers learn to diagnose student reading skills and respond with focused, deliberate instruction will literacy be available to all children. There is no debating that.”

          For parents wishing to be members of the instructional team serving a student, the term, “Balanced Literacy,” says very little about the instructional program for their child. Parents need ongoing information on specific instruction for their child. Parents need to know what reading skills are being taught and why. Did the skills come from individual diagnostic assessments? What do the ongoing curriculum-embedded assessments say about the success of the instruction for their child? Is the individual assessment information on their child being used to adjust ongoing instruction to meet their child’s needs?  Every state has aligned the state reading curriculum for k-3 grades with the federal “Reading First” guidelines based on the Congressional research summaries.

To help parents serve as informed consumers of reading instruction services in public schools, an excellent consumer guide is listed below.

Link to: Proven Ideas from the Research for Parents

 

2. D.H. (Oregon) wrote:  We have a child who is in the fifth grade and appears to be a smart, hard-working student. This child has struggled to learn to read, and the most recent school assessment indicted that he is "below grade level." His younger brother is just starting kindergarten. We are thinking of becoming more involved in the schools reading instruction and even doing reading instruction at home. Are intelligent students always good readers? top

        No. For most students in the beginning grades, particularly kindergarten through grade 3, two conditions must be met. First, the student must not develop bad habits that conflict with the competent and confident application of phonic decoding skills. Second, the student must have access to timely, effective instruction in decoding skills.

      Sometimes the most motivated and intelligent students develop word attack skills that are initially effective, and these students then assume they have learned to read. Later, these students often find that success eludes them in grades 2 and 3 when the curriculum requires the student to move from reading a few hundred words, to reading a few thousand words. These ineffective word attack skills typically involve the rote memorization of whole words.

        Timely, effective instruction in phonic decoding skills will combat bad habits involving too much dependence on rote memorization of whole words. To prevent problems the student must receive (a.) effective instruction in phonemic awareness in kindergarten, preferably in the first three months of kindergarten, and receive (b.) extensive practice in applying the phonic decoding skills using decodable readers.   With these interventions we limit dependence on bad habits, such as the rote memorization of whole words and guessing from context, illustrations or initial letters, and sounds.

      As vocabulary requirements increase in quantity and complexity, students must have the phonic decoding word attack skills that allow them to address new words with competence and confidence. Students, dependent on the rote memorization of whole words, lack the ability to read new words that they have not had the opportunity to rote memorize.

       While intelligence scores and reading scores are rarely perfectly correlated, the news is mostly good in that competent, research-based teaching can often overcome genetic and environmental factors that contribute to reading difficulty. With appropriate research-based instruction, many students with modest intelligence measures have learned to read with confidence and enjoyment.

       By all means become heavily involved with your children's reading instruction. First, become an informed consumer, and for this we suggest you consult the reference listed at the end of FAQ 1. This reference will also provide suggestions for activities that can be done at home.

 

3. L.C. (California) wrote:My daughter (3rd grade) often substitutes synonyms for words that she is reading aloud.  I read somewhere that there is a name for this and that it is hereditary.  Because she stumbles to read the correct word during a timed reading test, she mostly scores "below grade level" on her performance reading tests.  However, she has great comprehension and does well in all of her classes.  I am concerned that her school is labeling her a below average reader when I believe that she is just a slow reader and this slow reading has nothing to do with comprehension. top

Causal Factors:

The causal factors for “word substituting” vary. The most common causes are instructional. In some school reading programs students are systematically taught to guess from context. The good news with your third grader is that the guessing is very rational and the substituted words often make sense. In many cases the guessing is wild and irrational. Regardless of the cause, the instructional interventions will be the same. Using context, while appealing, is a bad habit that increases the reading difficulty with age and the increasing complexity of the text.

I would suggest that you revisit the decoding skills, usually taught in K-1 grades. We often encounter students in grades 3-12 who were not taught the basis phonemic awareness skills. The research is very clear - the blending skills are the most important. If these important prerequisite phonemic awareness skills were not taught to mastery, they must be mastered regardless of student age. One of the most revealing checks would be to decode or “sound out” nonsense words. This is a task that provides no context or previous practice clues to the student.  This is also a task that is now being included in many school K-3 assessment systems such as DIBELS assessments.

My Suggestions:

 

4. Several persons have asked: You give credit to the SWRL/Ginn Beginning Reading Program (BRP). How does the Reading For All Learners Program (RALP) differ from the BRP? Also, I would be very interested in the history of both programs. top

Overview:

The federally funded Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Development developed the Beginning Reading Program. In keeping with the federal law, the Ginn company published the program under license for five years, after which, the program was placed in the public domain. Unfortunately, when the Ginn license expired, the program was dropped by the publisher. For several years Utah State University, as a public service, collected and disseminated copies of the original SWRL program on a non-profit basis.

In 1993, Alan Hofmeister and a Utah State University research and development team completed a range of adaptions to the original program. The changes were designed to (1.) apply more recent research findings, (2.) provide additional prompts and supports to allow the program to be used with a wide range of students with disabilities, and (3.) make additions to ensure that aides, volunteers and parents could effectively use the program. The changes, while substantive and numerous, preserved the strengths of the original program, and yet responded to the more recent research findings, the increased role of paraeducators in Title I and special education programs, and more recent federal and state accounability requirements for monitoring and documentation of student progress. The changes were substantive enough to meet federal copyright requirements and allow copyright to be placed on the RALP version.

A History:

While I am not well placed to discuss the prepublication history of the Beginning Reading Program (BRP), I can provide some milestones in the development of the Reading for All Learners Program (RALP).

Major developments in the field of educational research derive from long-term programmatic research in which one generation of researchers stands on the shoulders of the previous generation. The present Reading for All Learners Program is the end product of more than 30 years of research. This research can be documented in three phases.

Phase 1, 1968-1984 – Initial Research: Adaptation of reading programs of the 1960s.

  In the 1960's, the nation began what was known as “deinstitutionalization.” Most persons with severe disabilities were no longer condemned to a life-long placement in a state institution; local community placement became the preferred placement. With this change in policy came a need to develop the tools and practices that would provide community placement with dignity for persons with disabilities. One gateway practice that was needed was access to reading instruction that would meet the needs of all learners in the community, including those previously confined to state institutions. In 1968, Alan Hofmeister was appointed to direct such a deinstitutionalization program in Eugene, Oregon. The clients were teenagers and young adults who had been institutionalized and who had I.Q scores below 50. Hofmeister worked with adaptations to two of the major reading programs in wide use at the time and developed a range of procedures for adapting reading programs to teach persons with a range of disabilities. The program that generated the most positive findings and the most hope for the future, was the DISTAR reading program developed by Sigfried Engelmann. For a summary  of those practices, and findings see Link to Englemann program . The present version of this program is presently known as Reading Mastery.

 An internationally recognized expert of the 1960s had stated “Do not attempt to teach trainable children to read by phonics. It is a waste of time and effort.” The findings from the Eugene project caused us to question this observation and we, with others began the research and development to design reading instruction addressing the needs of all learners, including those previously considered “non-educable."

Phase 2, 1984 – 1993 – Expert Systems: Analysis and Adaptation of the SWRL program.

During this phase the BRP moved into the public domain and was available to researchers. The Utah State University team reviewed the research and generated a listing of attributes that needed to be supported and strengthened, and additions that were needed. The relationship between the DISTAR program of Engelmann and the SWRL program was strong. The phoneme sequence and the emphasis on decodable text were two attributes that both emphasized. For example, unlike the BRL Sullivan Reading Program the DISTAR program carefully avoided plosive consonants in initial blending instruction. These sounds, such as p,b,and d sounds in the initial positions in "pat" and "bat," made blending phonemes very difficult. Words such as "Sam" and  "man" were far easier to blend. The phoneme sequence of the DISTAR program of the 1960s was very similar to the phoneme sequence of  the Beginning Reading Program released in the early 1970s.

During the 1980s the research identifying our most effective teachers generated very specific practical findings for all teachers, particularly teachers of students at risk of academic failure. The 1980s also generated a range of program analysis tools based on the developing science of Artificial Intelligence (AI) . The Utah State University team used Expert Systems software prepared by Stanford University to analyze the Beginning Reading Program. Two outcomes of the analysis were: (1.) changes to increase the level of text decodability, and (2.) changes to increase the application of the effective teaching research, particularly the research on the progression from the initial teaching of a specific skill to demonstrated mastery of the skill with competency and confidence. For an overview of this effective teaching research, see Effective teaching functions research.

Most of the changes made as a result of the AI analysis involved additional practice examples at the different steps in the learning sequence. For a summary of this learning sequence see Diagram:Teaching Functions. As a part of the AI computer analysis, every sentence, word, phoneme and symbol was identified and located in all the text. The analysis documented when each word, phoneme and symbol first appeared, when each was first taught, practiced with instructor support and practiced independtly. This analysis allowed researchers to determine when a student was being asked to demonstrate a skill without the preteaching needed to ensure the consistent demonstrations of success required to build student competence and confidence. This computer analysis provided the validation of levels decodability. When the adjustments were completed, researchers were confident in claiming the text was 100% decodable. Most states require students to have access to decodable text in the early grades. The level of decodability of the text in the Little Books exceeds the minimum requirements of all states.

Phase 3, 1993 – present – Implementation, validation and extension of RALP.

The following diagram summarizes the instructional products from much of the past 35 years of research and development. In the 1960s we suggested that measures such as I.Q. scores were essentially instructionally irrelevant to those of us designing individual instructional programs. All learners are entitled to quality instruction regardless of psychological labels. If we want to plan our instruction, we ask questions about the presence or absence of the prerequisite, or gateway skills. This means we must have a hierarchy of researched programs. The following is our present hierarchy. A second grader with strong decoding skills may start with sets 7and 8 of the Little Books and move quickly to the Fluency Builders. A kindergartner with Autism may need The Matching Sizes Shapes and Colors Program to learn the prerequisite academic skills and the needed  social and instructional participation skills.

5. What is DIBELS?
K.C. (Arizona) wrote: Last week I picked up my granddaughter from her kindergarten classroom and the teacher said that my granddaughter had done well on the "DIBELS". O. K. so I know I have not been to school in a while but what is a "DIBELS", and what does it mean for someone like myself who would like to support my granddaughters education? top

You and other parents and grandparents are asking the same question. DIBELS is a reading assessment system, that does not look like the typical end-of-the-year standardized reading test. A large number of states and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have implemented the DIBELS assessment system. DIBELS is short for Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy. Some tests are normative in that the tests tell you how your child compares to other children, some tests are designed to be more diagnostic and provide the teacher with information on what to teach, and also tell teachers and parents about the effectiveness of recent instruction. DIBELS is one of the latter tests and is usually given three or four times a year. Parents usually receive the DIBELS results and most schools will hold a DIBELS night to explain to parents what DIBELS is and what the individual assessment information means for each individual child. I would say it is a credit to your local school when the school takes the DIBELS information seriously and uses the information to systematically and progressively make changes in instruction to meet individual student needs in reading instruction. For parents and grandparents who want to be part of the instructional team DIBELS can ensure you are receiving practical and valid information on the progress of the child. A report card an end of the year tests that give a grade or score arrives too late for that instructional year. I would suggest that you do your best to understand the instructional implications of DIBELS. The University of Oregon and Florida State University are providing extensive support to those interested in using DIBELS. See the following links.

Link to University of Oregon DIBELS site

Link to Florida State University DIBELS site.

For kindergarten a DIBELS assessment will typically be given near the beginning of the year, near the middle of the year and near the end of the year. Each student is assessed individually, with an oral assessment that takes only minutes. In kindergarten the four measures are (1.) Initial Sound Fluency, (2.) Letter Naming Fluency, (3.) Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, and (4.) Nonsense Word Fluency. The most important measure is the nonsense word fluency measure. The is measure is important because it combines letter sound fluency and blending. The research on the importance of phonemic awareness as the most powerful predictor of later reading success stressed blending of phonemes to for words as the most important phonemic awareness skills.  based on work with DIBELS and at-risk learners we would have two suggestions.

First, the student is require to learn both the sounds and the names of letters. This can be confusing, clearly the letter sounds are most important and are the building block of words, teach the sounds first. When the student is competent and confident with the sounds then gradually introduce the letter names if that is necessary. Letter names are often taught as a part of spelling and handwriting. Both letter sounds and letter names will be needed for kindergarten DIBELS.

Second, the blending and forming nonsense words such such as "fap" , can generate some confusion if the student does not have the concept of a nonsense word. For the student that accurately blends "fap" and then thinks he is wong because the word does not make sense, we have a problems. teach the concept of discriminating between a "real" word and a "nonsense" word. For example, "cap" and "fap" which is the "real" word and which is the "nonsense" word?

Our Reading for All Learners Phonemic Awareness Program has been widely and successfully used with DIBELS. This is a very low cost complete kit with the student and teacher materials. The program addresses the prerequisite skills needed for the "Little Books" and also addresses DIBELS skills such as phoneme fluency, blending and nonsense words. This is a scripted program that provides on-the-job support for aides, volunteers and parents who make up the instructional team.

In your question you made reference to your interest in supporting your school's reading instruction. In the following link provided by the National Education Association, suggestions are given for parent support of phonemic awareness instruction.

Link to article: helping kids Develop Phonemic Awareness

These parent activities will address many of the skills stressed and asessed by DIBELS.

6. K.W.  (Texas)  wrote: My son is progressing well with his reading except for multi-syllabic words. What would you suggest? top

Suggestion.

One of the errors we often make as instructors is approaching the instruction of multi-syllabic words by emphasizing, segmenting in the initial stages of instruction. While segmenting is important, it is far easier for students to add prefixes and suffixes to three-letter words. Building words from the parts also makes the role of prefixes and suffixes more visible. Initially, combining word parts is far more important than segmenting multi-syllabic words.

Start with root words the students are reading with confidence and understanding. Do not attempt to add prefixes and suffixes to words presently being taught. For example, if you are near the end of the Red Set 1 (kindergarten) go back several books to Book 23 “Run Feet Run”.

Choose the words: fit, sun, sit, fun, run.

Together with your student add suffixes first. Adding prefixes is important but it is more difficult because the student is very dependent on the initial sounds of known words and the addition of a prefix makes the word look totally new while the addition of a suffix does not generate a totally new word to the student. For some students with learning disabilities, we must preserve the left-to-right directionality for decoding words and we should not encourage any other behavior.

Have the student prepare a list.

First – the student writes the known word.

fit

Second - discuss the addition of a suffix and have the student write the new word.

fitting

Third – have the student use the word in a sentence.

He is fitting on his coat.

Fourth – have the student use a slanted line to segment the word.

fitt/ing

Discuss any relevant rule, such as doubling the ending “t”.  Do not be concerned about learning the rules at this stage.

The student’s final list should look like this:

fit        fitting       fitt/ing

sun       sunny       sunn/y

sit      sitting      sitt/ing

fun     funny       funn/y

run      running     runn/ing

As you build this list, do systematic and regular reviews until the student is confident with the oral reading of the list and comprehension has been assessed by using the newly created multi-syllabic word in a sentence.

 At this time do hold the student accountable for the spelling. Correct any spelling errors immediately or have the students ask for help if they have trouble with spelling.  Only after a student is fluently addressing the addition and segmenting of word parts should spelling be addressed. However, we musy not have the student practicing spelling errors. Immediate corrections and preventive modelling without reprimands will prevent the practicing of spelling errors.

Play games making as many new words as possible with root words, once initial competence and confidence is achieved.

For example:    run – running, runny, rerun, rerunning.

When the student is comfortable and confident combing prefixes and suffixes, then move to segmenting words into root words and parts. The first step is to say the word the “slow way,” then write the word, and then segment the written word, e.g.,     re/run.

Combining oral and written practice is important when teaching the addition of prefixes and suffixes and segmenting multi-syllabic words into parts. In the combination of word parts and segmenting, discussion of the role of the parts is important. This discussion must be accompanied by using the word in a sentence to demonstrate understanding.

 

What does a competitive proposal look like?
The funding agency will usually specify the format and headings to use in the proposal. A typical grant proposal  will require the following components: top

1. An introduction or overview.

2. A statement of the problem.

3. A listing of objectives.   

4.The procedures to be used to accomplish the objectives.

5. An evaluation plan and reporting procedures.

6. The budget.

Find out as much as you can about the criteria that will be used to evaluate your proposal.  In evaluating a building or district proposal, a State Education Agency (SEA) will often use the following evaluation criteria:

1. Does the proposal directly address the state need identified in the state Request For Proposals (RFP)?

2. Does the proposal comply with the budget limitations listed in the RFP ?

3. Is the proposal rational and internally consistent?

4. Are the proposal activities consistent with the relevant  state and federal policies and regulations?

5. Are the proposal activities consistent with a credible  synthesis of the research.

For an excellent detailed rubric for reviewing and scoring proposals see the link to "Example 3 of Reading RFP (Illinois)" below. In this document go to Appendix E, page 24. This appendix provides specific examples of each criteria that (a.) "Does Not Meet Standard", (b.) "Meets Standard", and (c.) "Exemplary".

 

Suggestions top

Use the information on the agency proposal evaluation procedures to review and revise the proposal document. Most states will provide a "Scoring Rubric" that lists the criteria that will be used by the proposal evaluators. See the following link to the Arizona Reading First Plan that provides the scoring rubric on page 66.

Link to Arizona Department of Education Reading First Plan

 

Most proposal requirements specify a page length. Stay within the requirements.

Your objectives should specify what results you want not how you plan to do it. The best objectives will be those that specify student outcomes e.g. changes in student achievement levels. The procedure section of the proposal documents the "How". The core of a procedures section is a listing of the major activities to be funded by the grant. Typically, a grant will have 10 to 20 major activities. Number each activity in chronological sequence and describe each activity, list the date each activity will begin and the date the activity will end and list the name or names of the persons responsible for the activity. See Appendix H in the following link for an example of an activity schedule.

Link: Example of an Activity Schedule (Tennessee)

The introduction or overview should be a summary of the total proposal and should be concise and carefully worded.

The statement of the problem you are addressing and the statement of objectives should be tightly linked. One of the best ways to rationally link the statement of the problem and the statement of the objectives is to finish the problem statement by defining the problem as a "lack" - a lack of something that is needed to improve instruction. The statement of the objectives should then propose an action that will directly address the "lack". For example, if the problem statement finished with "The problem is the lack of research-based staff development and associated instructional materials to substantively increase the number of students performing at grade level in reading." Then, the following objectives could state, " We will increase the percentage of students performing at grade level by 20% by implementing a research-based reading program..."

The following links will take you to typical state requests for proposals for funding for reading instruction.

Link: Example 1 of Reading RFP (New Hampshire)

Link: Example 2 of Reading RFP (New Mexico)

Link: Example 3 of Reading RFP (Illinois)

An evaluation plan should focus on documenting the specific student outcomes. Typically an evaluation plan will include "formative evaluation" procedures in which teachers will use curriculum embedded measures of student progress to systematically and progressively improve instructional practices. The evaluation plan will also include "summative evaluation" practices in which annual standardized tests will serve to provide more external and objective measures to document student progress.

Evaluate and document the "exportability" of your project. If your project is funded and successful, can you easily export the project to another school or district? Exportability can be directly addressed under the description of procedures. "Replicability" is another similar term. In the New Mexico proposal review criteria they ask the exportability question, "What is the strategic plan for sustainability and institutionalization?"  (see link to Example 2 above)

Have the document critically reviewed and revised. Proof reading is essential. Poor grammar and misspellings on the first page will create a first impression with reviewers that may negate other quality content.

Be detailed in the budget. Show a practical understanding of the costs. If your school or district is willing to share some of the costs, document this cost sharing. Nothing exemplifies local commitment more that real cost sharing. Local commitment is often a proposal evaluation criterion.

 

What topics must be addressed? top

A review of the different state reading Requests For Proposals (RFP's) will stress two topics, SBRR and the Five Essentials. SBRR or, Scientifically Based Reading Research is a term with a rigid federal Title I definition for documenting the research support for the reading programs being proposed in the grant proposal.

For the federal definition, and an example of its use to document the research support for a specific program use the following link.

Link to SBRR definition and RALP SBRR documentation.

The Five Essentials provide the five major reading goals. These goals are also based on federal and state Reading First grant requirements. The five essentials are; Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension. Learning Point Associates have provided a concise and very practical description of each of these essentials. See the following link.

Link to description of Five Essentials.

This description can be used in a number of contexts including, the research definition, descriptions of student outcomes, and description of teacher and literacy coach behaviors.

For a more detailed description of the five essentials see the following link.

Link to Five Big Ideas   (University of Oregon)

This University of oregon link will provide an excellent staff development presentation.

What topics should not be stressed? top

In a presentation to state agencies preparing Reading First proposals to the federal Department of Education, Alan Hofmeister identified topics and issues that had generated low evaluations by some federal grant reviewers. A summary of the issues that should not be stressed is contained in the following PowerPoint presentation.

Link to "Lessons Learned" by Alan Hofmeister

The key lesson from the above presentation is that one should focus on issues such as the five essentials that have strong support in the federal research summaries. One must not assume that isuues, such as the use of portfolios for assessment, that are not listed or supported in the federal research summaries are appropriate.

What resources can I use to document the quality of the instructional interventions used in my proposal?   top

Compared to other parts of the curriculum, reading instruction policies and regulations are comparatively well coordinated among local, state and federal educational agencies. All state and federal requirements are based on national Reading Panel Report. For an executive summary of this report use the following link.

Link: National Reading Panel Report: Executive Summary

The following web link will take you to a concise list of resources for documenting a reading instruction grant proposal.

  Link: Policy and Research Resources 

The link to these  resources will provide documents on state and federal policy requirements. The resources also provide very credible and concise summaries of the the reading research that can be quoted to support the proposed instructional practices.

This is my first grant. What words of wisdom do you have? top

In some cases good proposals will not be funded because of geography, available funds and other factors not related to the quality of the proposal. An experienced, successful grant writer selects grant topics that allow the proposal to be reused at a later date with minor modifications. If possible, visit personally with the funding agency and seek reasons for the rejection and suggestions for improving future grants. if you want to create a positive impression for future grant submissions, request a copy of reviewer comments and then write a "thank you" note to the person providing the reviewer comments. Do not act as though your feelings are hurt, and you have taken a grant proposal rejection personally. The most consistently successful grant writers are in it for the long run. They seek feedback, and they use the feedback to improve future grant proposals. Do not hesitate to let the funding agency know you have appreciated the feedback, and will use the information to improve future submissions. If you want to leave a bad impression with your school district administrators and state agency personnel, whine about the lack of appreciation for your grant writing skills.

If you are funded, make a major investment in ensuring success. Share your success. Send copies of any favorable press releases to the funding agency.

A successful proposal that leads to the successful implementation of an important, instructional project generates a major professional asset and, above all, a major service to students. top

 

Can I purchase your products with a school purchase order?

Yes, just fax your PO to use along with a copy of our order form. Or you can enter your PO number at checkout of Sam's Secure Store. You can always call us with any questions, we would love to talk to you! 435-755-7885. top