MEF Grant Application Rubric excel.xlsx

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G
1	MEF Grant Application Scoring Rubric
2		Expectation Level	WEAK - 1	WITHIN REACH - 2	WORTHY OF FUNDING - 3	WOW!! - 4	Score

3	I	Overall Application	An incomplete proposal with information missing or issues insufficiently addressed.	A complete proposal. Maybe vague or confusing.	A well written complete proposal	A well-written, complete and compelling proposal
4	II	Goals and Objectives	Goals and objectives are not clearly stated or omitted entirely. Connection to district, school and/or curricular goals is lacking.	Goals and objectives are stated but do not appear to correspond to district, school, and/or curricular goals	Goals and objectives are stated and correspond to district, school and/or curricular goals	Goals and objectives are clearly defined. The alignment to district strategic plan and school curricular goals is clearly stated.
5	III	Rationale and Collaboration	Benefit of proposed project is not clearly stated or absent. Proposal fails to incorporate creative ideas or collaborative prospects.	Benefit of proposed project is stated. Application fails to cite research or proven practice methods, if relevant. Incorporation of creative ideas or collaborative prospects is weak.	Benefit of proposed project is stated. Research/data is provided, if relevant. Program incorporates some creative ideas or collaborative prospects.	Benefit of proposed project is clearly stated and compelling, supporting data provided, if relevant. Project infused with creative and collaborative approach to instruction (ie value of potential application to circumstances beyond initial implementation. )
6	IV	Implementation Plan	A weak explanation of project implementation is provided but with missing pieces or lack of information so that prospective implementation is not clear.	Explanation of how the project will be implemented is provided, but may be missing information and/or the timeline is unrealistic and/or absent.	Explanation of how the project will be implemented provided. Timeline is provided and is attainable.	Complete and detailed explanation of how the project will be implemented is provided. Plan includes method of assessment/evaluation. Timeline is realistic.
7	V	Program Evaluation	No evaluation plan is provided for the project	An evaluation plan is provided for the project, but lacks student/target audience feedback.	An explanation of the method(s) of evaluating whether project goals were met is included. Student/target audience feedback evaluations are included in plan.	A clear, detailed explanation of the method(s) of evaluating whether project goals were met is included. Method of target audience/student reflection/feedback is included.
8	VI	Impact	Target population is not clearly defined.	Grant will impact a smaller target population in the initial and/or subsequent years. Efforts could be made to expand target population.	Grant will impact a large target population in the initial year or a smaller population over multiplayers.	Grant will impact large target population in both initial and subsequent years.
9	VII	Budget	Budget has insufficient detail and/or information.	Budget is provided but is missing some detail and/or there are questions about reasonableness of costs.	Budget is provided for all areas of the project and costs.	Detailed budget is provided for all areas of the project and costs seem reasonable.
10	VIII	Sustainability	Once funded and used, the Grant's value is terminable because proposal does not contemplate available funding to maintain. (One and done)	Once funded and evaluated, the Grant may be picked up for district to maintain. (Pilot)	Once funded and evaluated the Grant requires minimal maintenance and/or funding which the district can/willl maintain.	Once funded the Grant does not require upkeep or further funding to extend the value of the project.
11		Application Guidelines