With only 1% of your tax dollars going to fund federal programs for education, school districts and other nonprofits are turning to foundations and corporations for technology funding. These competitive grants become more difficult as the economy continues to struggle. Grant providers want proposals with high returns on investments as educators scramble to apply business models to their programs.
Planning for Technology
From the introduction of multimedia tools in the 1930s to the interactive remote learning environments of today, technology has an important function in education. With the digital age came technology grants. The goal was to make technology accessible to everyone. Thousands of teachers and schools applied and funds for hardware, software, and internet access came pouring in.
When asked "What do our students need to know to be successful?" teachers replied "computer literacy". Students were taught RAM and ROM, keyboarding, and even some DOS. Unfortunately, this was not the correct answer to this question. When asked "What do our students need to know to be successful?" the answer should have been skills like "problem solving, collaboration, communication, creativity, and divergent thinking". Technology should be a tool to build these skills, not a skill in itself.
The focus for grants and funding has moved from access to effective programming. Instead of planning for technology, plan for improving student achievement. Then ask how technology plays a role. Grant providers today require well thought out applications that focus on evidence of effectiveness and data-based decisions. Rarely is technology a funding category on its own anymore. The request for technology is often integrated into other programming grant applications. Several foundations and corporations still focus on technology education funding.
Showcase Organizations
The Technology Education Foundation is one organization that assists schools and other nonprofits through grants. The foundation is the brainchild of Jim Berbee who developed a $175 million IT solution business. Past grant recipients have received funding for travel to a science and engineering fair, a flipped classroom initiative, hardware and software, training, and blended learning initiatives. Money from the foundation comes from sponsors and participants in the annual Berbee Derby. In 2013, the race/walk drew more than 8000 participants and raised over $53,000 for grant recipients. It is open to recipients in the greater Dane County, Wisconsin area. Eligible organizations must be nonprofits with a current 501(c)(3) status, K-12 schools, government funded and operated organizations, or nonprofit healthcare facilities. For more information, visit http://www.techedfoundation.com/.
The IEEE Foundation solicits donations and awards grants for innovative projects. The foundation was established in 1973 in New York. The foundation supports projects that expand and enhance engineering, science and technology education, increases awareness of the impact of technology, and improves the human condition through technology-based solutions. In 2013, the foundation has awarded over $341,000 in grant funds including a Manhattan Project Legacy program, K-12 STEM outreach, and an online engineering history course workshop. The foundation does not fund individuals, operational costs, commercial promotion, capital improvements, salaries, or travel. For more information, visit https://www.ieee.org/organizations/foundation/index.html.
How to Seek Funding
Each organization will have its own funding requirements, but there are common areas that most granting foundations request. These include a need statement, an impact statement, measurable outcomes, long-range plan, and a budget.
1. Need Statement: The need statement presents the facts and other supporting evidence of a problem that you are trying to address. These statements include the target audience, the community, the purpose and goals of your organization, and data.
2. Impact Statement: The impact statement includes the proposed solution and how the solution will impact the problem and target audience. This statement illustrates the significance of projected changes including the return on investment and any possible negative impact as well as how those will be addressed.
3. Measurable Outcomes: Measurable outcomes are goals and objects that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely. This means that the goals and objectives are based on observable action, can be measured against set criteria, and can be completed in a reasonable about of time.
4. Long Range Plan: The long-range plan includes a breakdown of the goals and steps to achieve the goals. They include the specific step, the persons responsible, the materials needed, and the time for completion. The long range should discuss how the organization or learner will continue to benefit after the funding period. Include in this section if future funds are needed to continue the project after the initial funding period.
5. Budget: The budget will contain both a narrative and line item budget. The narrative summarizes the overall use of the funds. The line-item budget breaks the fund request down into categories such as personal, hardware, software, training, and travel.
Grant Writing
Many organizations have full time grant writers. Others outsource the task to freelance grant writers. Still others write the grant on their own. There is no right way or wrong way to complete this task. The important point is to read the application carefully and follow the directions. For help writing a grant, visit the Grant Professionals Association at http://grantprofessionals.org/find-a-consultant or Purdue's Online Writing Lab at http://grantprofessionals.org/find-a-consultant.
Rachel E Kovacs 10/2013
References
Carroll, T. G. (1997). Challenge Grants: bringing schools into the information age. Principal, 26-28.
Cookson, J. (2011). Is $600 Billion Enough? Wilson Quarterly, 52-55.
Hogan, K. (2013). Funding Fundamentals. Tech Learning, 6.
Love, P. (2011). The New Approach to Reeling in Tech Funding. District Administration, 60-64.
Parry, M., Field, K., Supriano, B., Gose, B., Hatch, J. M., & & Ruark, J. (2013). The Gates Effect. Chronicle of Higher Education, 18-23.
Schneider, J. (2011). Tech for All? Education Week, 24.
Ullman, E. (2013). Funding Your 1:1. Tech Learning, 24-26.
No comments:
Post a Comment