Needs Assessment-
Educational Grant Writing for Ballard High School Teachers
By Gallant, Hanley, Imler and Skoro
Problem
The lack of grant applications by Ballard High School (BHS) teachers has been identified as a performance problem within all departments at BHS. No applications were submitted during the Fall 2019 award period. BHS’s administration would like to understand the school’s decline in teacher-driven grant applications. The administration seeks to increase its grant application rate from 0 to 12 well-qualified applications during the 2020-2021 school year and obtain successful proposals 50% of the time (6). This will return BHS to its 2015 application and success rates.
Rationale
In today’s public-school environment, teachers and administrators often need additional funding to support classroom projects. Grants are available but often aren’t used. Ballard High School (BHS) has received grant funding in the past to support classroom initiatives, and administrators have noticed a steady decline in the quantity and quality of grant proposals submitted by teachers since 2015. Furthermore, initial data collection suggests many teachers at Ballard High do not plan to submit any grant proposals in the immediate future.
In order to achieve the “commitment to excellence” (Ballard High School, n.d., para. 1) mentioned in its mission statement, BHS must constantly strive to develop innovative teaching methods. Grant writing provides opportunities for teachers to incorporate innovations into their teaching by providing opportunities to network, partner with other teachers in their content area, and investigate new curriculum. Students benefit from the enriched learning opportunities these grants facilitate.
Application
When the project was chartered, the administration suspected that grant writing performance among teachers had declined significantly. This assumption was confirmed through informal discussions with a subset of BHS teachers. Despite confirmation from these teachers, uncertainty remained regarding whether this was a systemic problem among all school departments and how long this performance problem had existed.
To fully understand the scope of the problem, a variety of data collection tools were used:
Interviews
In person and phone interviews were conducted using a variation of a sample interview protocol provided by Watkins, Meiers, and Visser (2012).
Interview questions were designed to:
understand the performance problem
identify the specific knowledge required to perform the task
identify additional resources available for defining exemplary performance.
Surveys
An anonymous online survey was developed based on Gilbert's Behavior Engineering Model and delivered to all BHS teachers (N=120).
The survey provided information regarding:
demographics
BEM-based questions
teacher's knowledge and/or previous experience with grant writing.
Extant Data
An extensive list of extant data sources assisted in determining the root cause(s) of the performance problem.
Data sources included:
2013-2019 performance data
articles, media, scholarly articles, and public websites
grant writing workshop participant material
The team and client used the performance gap to identify three broad goals:
factors contributing to the performance problem
level of the organization these factors originate (external, organizational, job, worker)
actions BHS can take to improve grant writing performance
Multiple HPT frameworks were used to organize and understand the collected data. A brief description of these frameworks and their application to the needs assessment are described below.
Marker's Synchronized Analysis Model (SAM) (Marker, 2007)
Initially, it was unclear where the root cause of the performance problem resided. Because of this, Marker's SAM was selected as the framework for organizing and distilling information pertaining to BHS' performance problem. This seemed beneficial since it allowed data to be collected according to the external, organizational, job, and worker levels associated with the grant writing process.
Gilbert's Behavior Engineering Model (BEM) (Gilbert, 2007)
Gilbert's BEM was used to help distill and derive meaning from all collected information. Using Gilbert's BEM allowed the individual and environmental factors contributing to the performance decline to be identified.
The factors of performance (Individual, Environmental) and components of behavior (Data, Resources, Incentives, Knowledge, Capacity, and Motives) were used as the basis for all data gathering. This data organization method allowed the use of Mager and Pipe's Performance Analysis Flow Diagram to identify appropriate intervention category recommendations.
Mager and Pipe's Performance Analysis Flow Diagram (PAF) (Mager & Pipe, 1997)
Mager and Pipe’s Performance Analysis Flow Diagram (PAF) was used following data collection and completion of the BEM and SAM. Once the root causes of the performance problem were understood the PAF allowed for a systematic identification and selection of intervention types to occur. This facilitated intervention recommendations that were more likely to result in performance improvement for the organization.
Performance Intervention Rating (Stolovitch & Keeps, 2005)
Stolovitch and Keep’s Performance Intervention Rating allowed interventions to be rank ordered so the most effective and feasible interventions could be recommended to the organization, allowing the most significant performance improvement for the least amount of time, energy, and required resource commitment.
Recommendations
Using Mager and Pipe’s PAF to evaluate the conditions leading to sub-optimal performance, the following intervention types were recommended to improve grant application and acceptance rates:
1.) Improved communication from the administration regarding grant availability, application processes, deadlines, etc.
2.) Provide just-in-time training, worked samples, and additional performance support to teachers interested in pursuing grant opportunities.
3.) Improved feedback regarding how grant application and awards are connected to teacher performance evaluations.
4.) Addition of positive rewards, formal or informal recognition, should be provided to grant applicants and award winners.
5.) Removal of obstacles to performance.
Results
Although this project took place in Fall 2019, BHS has started to implement some of the recommendations listed above. Most significantly, BHS has increased the communication regarding grant opportunities for their teachers and their value on the quality of education delivered to the students. While this project largely focused on a $3,000 a year improvement for BHS, these discussions have had a ripple effect. Teachers within the Special Education Department have started to investigate grants for job training opportunities and service animals in the classroom to better assist their students.
References
Ballard High School. (n.d.). Mission statement. Retrieved October 25, 2019 from https://rhs.rcschools.net/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=557922&type=d&pREC_ID=1059437
Gilbert, T. (2007). The behavior engineering model. In Human competence: Engineering worthy performance (tribute edition) (pp. 73-107). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1997). Performance analysis flow diagram. Analyzing performance problems: or, you really oughta wanna: How to figure out why people aren’t doing what they should be, and what to do about it (3rd ed., p. 5). Center for Effective Performance.
Marker, A. (2007). Synchronized analysis model (SAM): Linking Gilbert’s Behavior Engineering Model with Environmental Analysis Models. Performance Improvement, 46(1), 26-32.
Stolovitch, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (2005). Performance improvement interventions: Selection-design/delivery-implementation phase. [Blog]. HR.com.
Watkins, R., West Meiers, M., & Visser, Y. (2012). A guide to assessing needs: Essential tools for collecting information, making decisions and achieving development results. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.