By Hayes Mizell

Journal of Staff Development, Summer 2003 (Vol. 24, No. 3)

Copyright, National Staff Development Council, 2003. All rights reserved.

If there ever was a time when it was possible to execute professional development on the cheap, that time is long gone. High-quality staff development that leads to nearly all students performing at standard requires more resources--and more educators determined to apply them efficiently and effectively.

Many educators immediately think of grants from state or federal government or from private philanthropies when they look for additional funding. These can be helpful, but there is an opportunity cost to seeking grants. Identifying funders, learning about their interests, and developing proposals takes time and effort. Many schools and districts don't have staff with either the time or skills to seek external funding.

Educators often overlook the most obvious source of additional funding--their school system's or school's own budget. Educators shouldn't assume districts or schools are making the best use of current staff development funding. Many professional development initiatives grind on for years without a critical review of their benefits for either educators or students. Districts and schools cannot afford this luxury. Without demonstrable evidence that staff development initiatives effectively address teachers' and principals' day-to-day challenges to increase student achievement, educators should question how the professional development resources are being used. When staff development doesn't result in improved teacher and student performance, districts must reallocate professional learning money to new activities with greater potential for success.

But what if the district or school is using its professional development resources effectively and staff are available to seek additional support from external funders?

The first step is to be clear about the activity for which the district is seeking the support. Begin by answering these questions:

• Why is the activity necessary?
• Why is support for it not available from the school system's/school's budget?
• What specific results will the activity seek to achieve?
• When will it begin and end, and what will be the milestones for assessing its progress?
• What is the research or experience that leads the school system/school to believe that the activity will produce the desired results?
• Who will be primarily responsible for implementing the activity, for ensuring quality control, and what is this person's authority to take the actions necessary to ensure the activity's success?
• Who will be responsible for assessing the results of the activity, and how?
• When will the results be known and to whom will they be reported, and how?

These are only a few of the hard questions those developing a proposal should ask themselves, preferably in collaboration with some critical friends who will not accept superficial answers. A proposal that reflects a solid conceptual design, realistic goals, a concrete implementation plan, strong internal accountability, and serious evaluation will be much more likely to succeed than one that screams between the lines, "We just want the money!"

Developing a proposal that has integrity is important, but who will fund it?

Identify a funder

Major categories of potential funders include:

• State and federal governments;
• Private foundations;
• Corporations;
• Individuals.

Many funders have an agenda. They have certain goals and want partnerships with school systems or schools that have the will and know-how to accomplish those goals. Some educators wait for these funders to send a "request for proposal" (RFP) before developing a plan and applying for funding. They may be applying for the wrong reasons, less because of their agreement with the funder's priorities than because they want the money, or extra personnel, or the status an externally initiated project can provide. When proposals such as these are funded, their results can be limited and are often disappointing. Assertive educators who understand teachers' learning needs and have creative but workable plans to address them first develop a proposal and then identify sources that may be interested in funding it. They may choose to respond to an RFP, but only if they are confident their goals match those of the potential funder.

When a school system or school has carefully thought through what it wants to do and how, it must identify a potential funder.

National foundations

Visions of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars provided by a national foundation are seductive, but unrealistic. Just as most good high school basketball players don't end up playing on a National Basketball Association team, most local grant proposals aren't funded by national philanthropies. It happens, but rarely. The time and effort required to identify such a funder and make a successful appeal is beyond most local education agencies' capacity. For those still interested in pursuing that course, the best source of information is the web site of The Foundation Center (http://fdncenter.org). The Foundation Center is an independent organization whose mission is "promoting public understanding of [philanthropy] and helping grant-seekers succeed." The web site includes a useful internal search engine grant-seekers can use to identify funders' interests and related grants.

NCLB funds

For most educators interested in expanding opportunities for high-quality professional development, funding opportunities are closer to home. Various sections of the recent No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act either explicitly require or permit states and school systems to use NCLB funds to improve staff development. NCLB allocates the largest amount of federal money in history to aid elementary and secondary education, but it also forces educators to make difficult decisions about how they will use the money. Educators may not be aware of who in their school system or school is making these decisions, and why they have chosen to seek funds for one activity required or permitted under NCLB but not another. Title II of the law requires school systems to assess teachers' professional development needs, involve teachers in this process, and develop a local improvement plan to address these needs. At a minimum, educators should ask for copies of the documents outlining these activities. These documents should provide basic information about how the school system will use NCLB to strengthen staff development. These documents also may offer clues for how educators can influence local school officials' future decisions about allocating NCLB funds.

Foundations

Other potential sources of support are local and state funders such as community foundations, corporate foundations, family foundations, or other philanthropies. (Definitions of these terms and related jargon are available at the Council on Foundations web site at www.cof.org/glossary/index.htm). The most direct way to identify foundations in a specific state or city is to go a public library and use The Foundation Directory (it is also available online, but only by subscription). Separating funders that may be receptive to a proposal focusing specifically on professional development from those that indicate they have an interest in education takes time, but is possible.

Grant-seekers should keep in mind that many prominent local and state businesses do not have foundations but designate one or more staff members to be in charge of corporate contributions. The amounts these companies donate usually are small but may be enough to support a team of teachers writing curriculum, pay a facilitator for a group of teachers who want to examine student work, provide dinner for a study group, or underwrite the cost of a faculty or departmental retreat. As with all potential funders, however, a business will want to know that its contribution, whatever the amount, is value-added and providing a unique opportunity the school system or school cannot offer.

Write a proposal

You've identified a potential funder and you need to write a proposal. Who should prepare it? The proposal writer should be someone who writes clearly and is committed to the activity you want to fund. A consultant may be helpful in providing pre-proposal coaching and reviewing and critiquing a draft of the proposal, but the consultant should not write the proposal. If the grant-seeker, who will be primarily responsible for implementing the activity, can't make a compelling written case for funding, his or her idea is probably weak and commitment shallow.

Whether you seek support from a governmental entity, a foundation, or another funder, there are three ironclad rules:

1. Get the directions for preparing the proposal.
2. Don't just read the directions--study and understand them.
3. Prepare the proposal exactly according to the directions.

In developing a proposal, as in life, asking questions to clarify your understanding indicates intelligence, not ignorance. Grant-seekers should take the initiative to be sure they understand what funders want and the form in which they want it. Proposals that violate these simple rules are often the first a funder rejects.

One common pitfall in proposals is poor writing. Writers use education jargon, sweeping but trite rhetoric, and long sentences, lulling funders to sleep instead of jolting their enthusiasm. Educators seem particularly prone to use the passive voice ("periodic observations will be made to assess performance") in ways that make it impossible for a funder to know who will take action. While this grammatical ploy gives the district or school maximum flexibility, it also signals that they don't value accountability. An effective proposal explicitly says who will do what, when they will do it, and the assets each person will bring to the work.

There are, of course, some generic rules to observe in preparing a proposal, unless a funder directs otherwise:

• Use a 12-point type size.
• Provide ample white space for readability, with adequate (at least three-quarters of an inch) top, bottom, right, and left margins.
• Keep the proposal to a reasonable length. Avoid repetition.
• Use the spell- and grammar-check and the readability features of a word-processing program.
• Make the proposal professional but not slick.
• Ask at least two friends or family members who know nothing about the subject of the proposal to read it critically, then quiz them to find out whether they understood it.

Ultimately, however, even the best proposal is only half the puzzle in obtaining a grant or contribution. There is an old saying in philanthropy, "Foundations fund people, not projects." The same is true of almost any funder. A proposal may stimulate a funder's interest, but in most cases an interested funder will want to meet and personally assess the competence and credibility of the person proposed to head the activity. This individual's personal and professional qualities are important. A funder's concerns will include:

• Does s/he personify an educator of the past or of the future?
• Does s/he have vision? Is s/he focused on results and taking whatever actions are necessary to achieve them?
• Does s/he tackle difficult problems with energy and imagination?
• Does s/he have a concrete implementation plan and the management skills to execute it effectively?
• Is s/he able to mobilize and empower other people, and collaborate with them to reach challenging goals?

No matter how persuasive a proposal may be, the clincher is the talent, values, and commitment of the person directly responsible for bringing the proposal to life. Resources are available to support high-quality professional development. Indeed, more resources are available now than at any time in the history of public education. But school systems and schools have not always used staff development funding effectively, casting a long shadow on current efforts to secure additional money. Funders will ask what is different now and why they should expect better results from new initiatives. The answers, of course, lie in rigorously developed proposals that reflect tough thinking and concrete plans that link professional development processes to improved performance for both educators and students. When educators can demonstrate their mastery of this linkage, and document the results, funders will respond.

About the Author:

Hayes Mizell is a distinguished senior fellow with the NSDC. You can contact him at 6408 Goldbranch Road, Columbia, SC 29206, e-mail: hmizell@msn.com.