Introduction

For our Module 4 assignment, I’ve had the opportunity to review two promising grant proposals from my classmates. I approached these reviews through the lens of a fellow educator and potential funder, focusing on how effectively each proposal identifies a clear need, presents a practical solution, and demonstrates potential for meaningful impact. As someone who’s worked with educational technology implementation, I was particularly interested in how these proposals addressed sustainability, evaluation, and alignment with their respective funding organizations’ priorities.

Both proposals tackle educational technology implementation but take different approaches – one addressing district-wide accessibility compliance and the other focusing on VR technology for at-risk students. My goal in these reviews was to highlight the strengths of each approach while offering constructive suggestions that might help strengthen their cases for funding. I hope my feedback provides useful insights as we all continue to develop our grant-writing skills throughout this course.

---

Review of Kristina’s “Access for All” Grant Proposal

I really enjoyed reading your proposal for the “Access for All: Building an Inclusive Technology Toolbox” project. As someone who’s worked with educational technology, I can see how crucial digital accessibility is becoming, especially with Colorado’s HB21-1110 pushing districts to meet these requirements.

What I loved about your proposal

Your problem statement really clicked with me. You clearly laid out how PSD is struggling with fragmented accessibility tools, and your three-tool solution (Kami, WAVE, and Read&Write) seems thoughtfully chosen to address specific needs. I appreciated that you didn’t try to solve everything at once but focused on high-impact areas.

The demographic breakdown showing how this would benefit 4,379 teachers/staff and 29,314 students made the scope of impact crystal clear. I found it helpful that you detailed exactly how different groups would use each tool – that practical approach shows you’ve really thought through the implementation.

Your three-year timeline makes a lot of sense. I like how you’ve built in professional development sessions and check-in points to track progress. The Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation approach with “Early Adopters” is smart – I’ve seen firsthand how that approach can drive tech adoption in schools.

The sustainability and replication aspect really strengthens your case. The fact that you’re planning to share this model with other Colorado districts adds significant value beyond just helping PSD.

Some thoughts to consider

While reading, I wondered about your baseline measurements. You’ve set clear targets (30% increased usage each year), but it might help to mention how you’ll establish your starting point. Do you have any current data about accessibility tool usage that could set the stage?

I was also thinking about potential challenges that might come up. What happens if a particular tool doesn’t gain traction? Or if a vendor changes their pricing model drastically? A brief section addressing how you’d handle potential roadblocks might make the proposal even stronger.

Have you considered how students with disabilities and their families might be involved in the feedback process? Their direct input could provide valuable insights beyond just tracking usage statistics.

I noticed you mentioned Clever integration for tracking tool usage – I’m curious about how these new tools will work with PSD’s existing technology. A bit more detail about technical compatibility would strengthen that part of the plan.

Final thoughts

Overall, this is a compelling proposal that addresses a real need with a practical, well-thought-out approach. Your three-year timeline gives adequate room for implementation and refinement, and your focus on creating a model for other districts is particularly strong.

The project aligns perfectly with both legal requirements and SIPA’s mission of improving digital government services. With some minor additions to address baseline metrics, risk management, and stakeholder involvement, I think you’ll have an exceptional proposal that stands an excellent chance of being funded.

---

Review of Sarah’s VR Grant Proposal

Sarah, I really enjoyed reading your “Bridging the Gap” proposal for the Toshiba America Foundation grant! It’s refreshing to see VR technology being proposed specifically to help at-risk students, who often need these engaging approaches the most.

Things that stood out to me

Your focus on the specific challenge of engaging at-risk students is spot-on. While Kristina’s proposal tackles accessibility on a district-wide level, you’ve zeroed in on a particular student population that could really benefit from an innovative approach. That targeted focus should resonate well with Toshiba’s emphasis on finding “a better way” to reach students.

The four objectives you outlined make perfect sense to me – enhancing engagement, providing hands-on learning, improving retention, and supporting career readiness. They flow logically from the problem you’ve identified and align perfectly with what VR technology can realistically accomplish.

I like how you’ve broken down the implementation into manageable phases. The progression from equipment acquisition to teacher training to student onboarding feels practical and well-thought-out. This shows Toshiba you’ve considered the full project lifecycle, not just the exciting “let’s get VR headsets!” part.

Your budget numbers for equipment ($4,499), software ($699), and professional development ($1,099) seem reasonable based on my own experience with educational technology purchases. These specific figures show you’ve done your homework rather than just ballparking.

Some thoughts to strengthen your proposal

I was wondering about your timeline for implementation. Since Toshiba emphasizes innovation and impact, it might help to add when each phase would happen – maybe a semester-by-semester breakdown? This would give reviewers a clearer picture of when students would actually start benefiting from the technology.

While reading, I was curious about how you’ll measure success. You mention tracking engagement and performance, but adding a few specific metrics or evaluation tools would make this more concrete. What might this look like in practice? Pre/post surveys? Attendance rates? Assignment completion? Adding these details would show Toshiba you’re serious about measuring impact.

One thing that Kristina’s proposal addresses well is long-term sustainability. You might want to touch on what happens after the initial funding period – who will handle ongoing technical support? How will the program continue if equipment needs replacement? Even a brief paragraph on this would show forward thinking.

I’m really intrigued by how the VR experiences will connect with your curriculum. Maybe you could highlight 2-3 specific content areas or units where you see the VR implementation having the biggest impact? This would make the academic benefits more tangible for reviewers.

Final thoughts

Overall, I think you’ve crafted a compelling proposal that aligns beautifully with Toshiba’s values – especially their emphasis on teachers looking for “a better way” to engage students. The focus on at-risk students gives your proposal a clear purpose that differentiates it from broader technology initiatives.

While Kristina’s proposal takes a district-wide approach to accessibility compliance, yours targets a specific student population with an innovative technology solution – both valid but different approaches. Your proposal’s emphasis on immersive, hands-on learning for students who might otherwise disengage from traditional methods feels especially powerful.

With a few additions regarding timeline, evaluation methods, sustainability, and curriculum connections, I think you’ll have an excellent proposal that stands a great chance of capturing Toshiba’s attention and support!