Proposal Writing Tips

These guidelines assist applicants at every phase of the process. If you portray your objectives in quantifiable ways, your proposal will not only be easier for a potential funding organization to understand but will also make the upshot appear much clearer. Attention to specifications, structure, brief persuasive writing and a reasonable budget are the decisive elements of proposal writing.

The elements of standard proposal writing are�”attachments, cover letter, narratives, abstract, budget and conclusion.
1.Cover Letter– An efficient cover letter must:
1.Be written on the College’s letterhead and should have signature of the College’s President.
2.Summarize your proposal briefly, counting your request amount as well.
3.In both, in your work and tone, express institutional support for your project.
4.Not exceed more than one page.
5.Mention your contact number.
2.Executive Summary or Abstract– It endows you with the opportunity to sum up your proposal in a few short paragraphs. Executive Summary or Abstract should:
1.Convey the project to the aims and precedence of the funding agency.
2.Abridge it and bullet the proposal’s vital points.
3.Emphasize both the effect and the project requirement.
4.Should not supplement more than one page.
5.Reaffirm the request amount.
3.Narratives — An effective narrative must comprise:
1.Statement of need– It give details of the measurable objectives, purpose, goals, and a compelling, rational reason why the proposal should be hold up using both hard statistics and anecdotal data.
2.Approach � It demonstrate the method and process of achieved goals and objectives, account of anticipated scope of work with the expected outcomes, schedule of activities and description of staff functions, if feasible with the names of key staff and consultants.
3.Evaluation� If you have accomplished what you set out to do, it will exemplify how to settle on. By and large, funders necessitate technical measurements of results such as statistical analysis, surveys, pre- and post-tests and focus groups.
4.Project Timeline � Should be detail in an adequate amount to specify about the staff selection and start dates. It takes the account of the start and end dates, agenda of activities, and estimated outcomes.
5.Credentials� It encloses information concerning the applicant that endorses its ability to carry out the proposed effort lucratively.
4.Budget�”
1.Many funders offer obligatory budget forms that are required to be put forward with the proposal.
2.Be flexible about your budget in case the funder prefers to negotiate costs.
3.Don’t overlook list in-kind and matching revenue.
4.They are cost projections
5.Conclusion– Your ultimate statement should be short, go over the importance and the intention of your project again, and in order to make the project’s accomplishment certain, entreat the funding source to bond with you for this.
6.Attachments– It includes:
1.College publications and promotional materials
2.A list of the College’s Board of Trustees
3.Curriculum vitae (Resume)
4.Audited financial statements
5.A 501 (c)3 tax-exempt letter

Identify the right funding sources�”
-To lend a hand in your funding search, there are many resources available, such as– Foundation centers, computerized databases, publications station development offices and public libraries.
-Don’t draw the border line to your funding search to one source only.
-Point out the explicit funding priorities and preferences.
-Discover whether the funder has other grant sources for which your project is entitled. Perhaps an annual report is presented when asking for the proposal guidelines and a list of projects previously funded through this specific grant program.
-Make inquiries about the utmost amount available and also find out the standard size and funding range of awards too.
-Verify if funding levels of the grants opted by you is proper for your project.
Sign up a project officer who will address your questions. Some funders bid the technical assistance, others do not. By determining about the format, what the funder requires, submit your proposal before the arrival of the deadline.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Education Development Projects

Contemporary education development projects can trace their origins to the programs of bilateral and multilateral official development assistance offered to newly independent and developing countries after World War II. The goals and purposes, content, format, actors, financing, and delivery of education development projects have undergone many changes throughout the last half of the twentieth century.
History
Official development assistance (hereafter, aid) for education expanded rapidly during the 1950s and 1960s when many previously colonized countries became independent. Industrialized countries were seen as partly responsible for the development of poorer and newly independent countries, through the provision of both financial resources and technical skills. Many multilateral institutions were founded to deliver development assistance, including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Foundations such as the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations became early players in the delivery of education development projects. Bilateral development assistance institutions, such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), were also established, and came to deliver both the largest share of international funding for development, and for educational development.
Ideas about modernization and progress dominated the work of these organizations. Development was generally defined as linear progress toward the kinds of economic and political systems existing in the Western industrialized world. Education, which was associated in industrialized countries with economic progress and national development through the creation of
human resources, quickly became an important component of their development agenda.
Initially, educational aid was primarily used to provide tertiary or graduate training to foreign nationals in donor countries, to bring trained educators to developing countries, or to help establish international professional organizations. However, in the 1960s, the focus of educational aid shifted somewhat as concerns about “brain drain” and continued developing country dependency on external institutions led donor governments and organizations to support vocational programs and the construction of tertiary and secondary institutions in developing countries. Donors began to invest in discrete education projects, which often focused on training for education providers (for example, teachers), provided technical support to education ministries, or constructed schools. Projects tended to fund capital as opposed to recurrent costs (like teacher salaries), and were small in scale, and staffed and monitored by the donor organization. Individual donors often specialized in a specific type of educational intervention or level of education, thus dominating that field and the pattern of its development in the recipient country.
The Project Model
The project model for delivering aid had several advantages over the initial focus on high level training. It often kept developing country personnel in country for training, trained lower-level personnel, built infrastructure, and offered a greater variety of technical services and training. It allowed for variation and experimentation�leading, for example, to innovative efforts to focus on grassroots educational development and literacy by Scandinavian donors. Joel Samoff (1997) outlines some of the project model’s weaknesses. Project aid often fragmented educational development and planning into a set of mismatched and uncoordinated donor-led interventions. It tended to emphasize short-term goals over longer-term needs, and to focus the resources of many of the countries’ ministries of education on short term project management and evaluation, rather than on systemwide development. Donor resources were often tied�provided only to finance goods and services from donor nationals. Finally, the choice and implementation paths of education development projects were often highly politicized. Education development projects produced complex donor/recipient government interactions, often colored by the ideological or institutional experience with education in the donor country and by the donor’s control over resources. For this reason, education development projects never functioned as the simple transfer of technical and financial resources originally envisaged in modernization theory.
Aid for Education
Hans Weiler notes that in the late 1970s, even as donor organizations reconfirmed the benefits of education for national development, education aid budgets began to stagnate or decline. Although there is a lack of comparable data before 1973, it appears that overall aid for education from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries barely kept pace with inflation after 1980. Ever fewer resources came from Eastern European, Soviet, and OPEC states and greater numbers of newly independent states vied for shrinking aid dollars. At the same time, the balance of influence among donors active in educational development projects shifted, with the World Bank emerging as the most significant single lender to education both in terms of technical and financial capacities.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, many developing countries faced a serious crisis in national education spending, caused both by widespread scale economic collapse and by subsequent structural adjustment programs. Financial tensions fueled debates among donors about the merits of educational expansion versus qualitative improvement, basic versus postprimary expansion of education, and academic versus technical/vocational or adult education. In the early 1980s, commentators such as Paul Hurst questioned the assumption that investment in education would yield economic growth, since two decades of large growth in educational investment in developing countries had not convincingly supported this claim. Soon after, new economic studies, such as Maraline Lockheed and Adriaan Verspoor’s World Bank�sponsored study claimed that a focus on basic education (particularly for girls) was the most cost-effective and developmentally effective form of educational investment. An era of economic austerity also fueled the introduction of new components in educational development projects, including an emphasis on cost recovery mechanisms, the decentralization of educational systems, the introduction of national testing programs, and support for nongovernmental provision of educational services.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Consortia In Higher Education

A consortium is an association of institutions for the purpose of improved and expanded economic collaboration to achieve mutually beneficial goals. In higher education, this organizational form was originally designed to foster interinstitutional cooperation among a group of colleges and universities for the purpose of enhancing services within a geographic region. More recently, as information and communication technologies have increased the availability of resources for research and development purposes, universities have joined with corporations and government agencies to form national and international consortia.
The parameters of academic cooperation may vary in scope by level of control (public-private), discipline (computer science, engineering, medicine), service provider (libraries, universities, science laboratories), or institutional level (research institute, government agency, corporation). Originating initially in the 1960s at a time of unprecedented expansion in higher education, consortia enabled institutions to share abundant resources. These consortia were voluntary, multi-institutional, multipurpose, and designed to serve their member institutions. By the mid-1970s, as institutions became more dependent on external sources of support, universities and colleges established consortia to sustain high-cost programs and facilities, strengthen constituent services, and penetrate new markets beyond their service area. In some instances, governing boards and funding agencies encouraged consortia development as evidence of economic collaboration among local and regional institutions to eliminate superfluous expenditures and achieve economies of scale and cost savings. Contemporary academic consortia may also be structured as school-university partnerships, business-university alliances, community-university coalitions, and multisystem networks. The current status of the academic consortium as an organizational form demonstrates its potential significance as a manifestation of the entrepreneurial university in a consumerist society.
Types of Consortia
The initial consortium structure consisted of three or more colleges and universities signing an agreement to cooperate in providing joint ventures, such as tuition waivers for cross-registration, faculty exchanges and professional development, interuniversity library privileges, joint purchasing of goods and services, and outreach projects. The success of these activities was heightened by comparability in missions, goals, laws, regulations, resources, and sources of support. More sophisticated and complex structural arrangements are now conceptualized around specialized purposes such as supercomputing, scientific research and development, medical school� teaching hospital collaboration, and cooperative degree programs in low-enrollment, specialized fields. In these cases, consortium objectives may be to reduce duplication and redundancy, gain access to federal agency funding, recruit international students, engage in advanced research, and utilize high-cost facilities.
Since the 1990s increased institutional investments in information and communication technology, with support from business and industry, have added important dimensions to consortia design. This growth has been most evident in multisystems and research universities as well as across national and international boundaries. Factors contributing to their longevity include the leadership and commitment of senior executives; formal agreements on resource sharing; collaboration in agenda setting, issue definition, and problem solving; realistic time-lines for project development; continuity in personnel; and complementary strategies for overcoming inequities and cultural differences among disparate partners.
Multipurpose academic consortia. The Association for Consortium Leadership (ACL) has identified 125 member consortia in the United States; these vary in size from 3 to 100 institutions engaged in a variety of collaborative projects. Two successful multipurpose academic consortia are Five Colleges, Inc. (Amherst, Smith, Mount Holyoke, and Hampshire Colleges and the University of Massachusetts� Amherst) and the Claremont Colleges, Inc., in California. Five Colleges is an independent, not-for-profit entity coordinated by an executive director and staff, drawing financial support from its member institutions and foundation grants, and operating collaborative faculty and student projects, including free transit throughout its service area. The Claremont Colleges in California, founded in 1925, brings together five independent but contiguous liberal arts colleges and two graduate institutions for collaborative business and academic services, most recently involving the development of an online cross-registration module in the five undergraduate colleges and better utilization of information technology across all seven institutions. The Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE) works with fifteen member states in devising cooperative programs and conducting policy research that addresses the needs of students in its service area. These include a student exchange program at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels, a cooperative for educational telecommunications, and the Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration (CONAHEC).
Technology-planning consortia. Other examples of consortia engaged in strategic technology planning across entire regions are the Colleges of Worcester (Massachusetts) Consortium, the New Hampshire College and University Council, and the Consortium of Universities in the Washington Metropolitan Area. The Internet2 Project, a consortium of more than 100 universities, has as its mission cooperative development, operation, and technology transfer of advanced, network-based applications and network services in its member universities as well as internationally. A technology initiative in the greater Chicago area brings together public and private colleges and universities in the North Suburban Higher Education Consortium with museums, school districts, and historical societies. A faculty initiative of twelve of the Pennsylvania State University’s academic colleges and its library system, and two historically black institutions, Cheyney and Lincoln Universities, are also engaged in designing and developing standards for quality distance education. Its guiding principles address learning goals and content presentation, teaching-learning interactions, assessment and evaluation criteria, instructional media and software tools, and the development of learner support systems and services. A national initiative, the Community of Agile Partners in Education (CAPE), includes 125 colleges, universities, school districts, medical schools and hospitals, and community-based organizations throughout the United States and abroad, providing training in pedagogical applications of videoconferencing, Internet use, and other technologies, and the sponsorship of interinstitutional cooperative faculty teaching and research projects.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off