Teachers Network
Translate Translate English to Chinese Translate English to French
  Translate English to German Translate English to Italian Translate English to Japan
  Translate English to Korean Russian Translate English to Spanish
Lesson Plan Search
Proud New Owners of teachnet.org... We're Very Flattered... But Please Stop Copying this Site. Thank You.
Our Lesson Plans
TeachNet Curriculum Units
Classroom Specials
Popular Teacher Designed Activities
TeachNet NYC Dirctory of Lesson Plans

VIDEOS FOR TEACHERS
RESOURCES
Teachers Network Leadership Institute
How-To Articles
Videos About Teaching
Effective Teachers Website
Lesson Plans
TeachNet Curriculum Units
Classroom Specials
Teacher Research
For NYC Teachers
For New Teachers
HOW-TO ARTICLES
TEACHER RESEARCH
LINKS

GRANT WINNERS
TeachNet Grant:
Lesson Plans
2010
TeachNet Grant Winners
2009
TeachNet Grant Winners
Adaptor Grant Winners
2008
TeachNet Grant Winners
Adaptor Grant Winners
2007
TeachNet Grant Winners
Adaptor Grant Winners
Other Grant Winners
Power-to-Learn
Math and Science Learning
Ready-Set-Tech
Impact II
Grant Resources
Grant How-To's
Free Resources for Teachers
ABOUT
Our Mission
Funders
   Pacesetters
   Benefactors
   Donors
   Sponsors
   Contributors
   Friends
Press
   Articles
   Press Releases
Awards
   Cine
   Silver Reel
   2002 Educational Publishers Award

Sitemap

Teacher Grants: How To

Why Proposals Get Rejected

After analyzing hundreds of grant proposals that were rejected, the following list has been put together. It contains the major reasons readers have rejected proposals.

A. Needs Statement

  1. The needs statement is not of sufficient importance, or is unlikely to produce any new useful information.
  2. The proposed research is based upon insufficient evidence, is doubtful, or unsound.
  3. The problem is more complex than the writer appears to realize.
  4. The problem has only local significance or fails to fall within the general field of the granting agency.
  5. The proposal is too ambitious, too many elements under simultaneous investigation.
  6. The writing is nebulous and diffuse with a clear research aim.
B. Approach
  1. The methods, procedures and evaluations are unsuited to the stated objective(s).
  2. The description is lacking in clarity to permit adequate evaluation.
  3. The overall design is not carefully thought out.
  4. The approach lacks scientific imagination.
  5. The material proposed to be used is unsuited to the study's objective.
C. Personnel
  1. Personnel does not have adequate experience or training for this research.
  2. Personnel proposes to rely too heavily on insufficiently experienced associates.
  3. Personnel needs more liaison with colleagues, s/he is not trying to take into account related fields, etc.
This grant writing pages were written by Nancy Powell, teacher at Bloomington High School, Bloomington, IL, and a former TeachNet Web Mentor.

 

Come across an outdated link?
Please visit The Wayback Machine to find what you are looking for.

 

Journey Back to the Great Before