Alice Armstrong of Springfield, Illinois, taught high school English for 18 years and currently works as a freelance writer and copy editor.

Imagine a wealthy man offering to give a beggar a crisp $20 bill, if the poor soul will get on his knees and plead for the money. Most people would be horrified by the exacting of one's pride for a meal. Yet the public tolerates this behavior by the federal government and the state of Illinois, which require financially struggling school districts to "beg" for grant monies to keep their doors open and the lights on in their classrooms.

Some may feel that this system of funding the nation's public schools is inefficient and unjust, playing Russian roulette with the quality of children's education and, thus, the quality of their lives. However, because it works for many well-to-do districts, the likelihood that benevolent politicians will revamp the system out of a sense of duty to the nation's least fortunate citizens is slim to nil.

Stuck with this jungle-like grant-funding system, needy districts would be well-advised to somehow scrape together the dollars to hire professional grant writers, for this investment would pay tremendous dividends over the years. But be prepared for sticker shock.

Salary.com lists the median salary for a grant writer in the U.S. at $48,587, with an average range of about $43,000 to just over $57,000. Just looking for a consultant? At least one service in California charges $50 an hour just to develop a list of potential sources. Development of the grant itself can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $8,000, depending on the funding source.

Creative ways districts can fund grant writing will be addressed later, but the need for such services — especially in Illinois — hinges on the way schools get their funding.

Illinois is one of the cheapest states in the nation when it comes to funding its public schools. "In 2006, Illinois funded slightly more than 35 percent of a school district's budget," reports the Institute of Government and Public Affairs, ranking Illinois 47th in state funding of public schools.

With so few state dollars, districts rely heavily on local property taxes to fill their coffers. In wealthy suburban districts, property owners can bear the burden and still live comfortably. Their schools are wired with the latest technology and their athletic facilities are state-of-the-art. Suburbia, then, is quite happy with the status quo.

Poor urban and rural districts, however, struggle to make ends meet under this funding system. Where property values are low and family incomes are modest, property taxes not only strain family budgets but also bring in relatively few dollars.

In these school districts, community members watch helplessly as their schools' infrastructures crumble and their academic programs sustain cuts year after year. Though concerned citizens have lobbied legislators for many years in an effort to establish a more equitable system of funding for Illinois schools, they have yet to move lawmakers to act.

Illinois was not always so stingy with its contributions to school districts. In its peak year, fiscal year 1975-76 for schools, the state contributed a full 48.4 percent of school districts' budgets. Since then, the state's share of school funding has steadily declined, and property tax bills have steadily increased.

This funding system has resulted in vast differences in resources for students in the state's 869 districts. In fact, Illinois has the dubious distinction of being ranked "50th in the funding difference per student between the state's highest and lowest poverty districts," according to the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE).

Equality via grants

Grant monies are intended to bring a little equity in resources to the state's districts. Therefore, entitlement grants that districts receive are based on demographics: the more low-income students in a district, the more grant money the state doles out to that district.

Perhaps if all else were equal between students in wealthy schools and those in poor schools, grant funding as it currently exists would suffice to meet poor districts' financial needs. But all else is not equal. Low-income students, many of whom need intensive services to succeed academically, are much more expensive to educate than middle-class and upper-class pupils. Entitlement grants do not supply these extra dollars that schools serving these populations need, a situation exacerbated by the requirements and sanctions of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.

For schools serving large numbers of low-income students, meeting the challenges posed by NCLB would require huge infusions of cash and probably a magic wand. However, neither is forthcoming from the federal government. On average, Title I dollars make up only 5 to 10 percent of the budget even in districts with large numbers of low-income students. If the federal government kept its promise to adequately fund NCLB, this percentage would be much higher.

However, according to the Center on Education Policy, states were slated to "receive only 60 percent of the (Title I) funds authorized under NCLB to assist schools designated as in need of improvement" in the 2006-07 school year. Ironically, the notoriously and chronically under-funded NCLB promises to punish underperforming schools by reducing federal funding.

This problem is not likely to be addressed in the near future either. According to the National Education Association: "Funding proposed for all NCLB Act programs in 2009 would increase by $125 million, or less than one-half of one percent, for a total of $24.7 billion. If a $300 million private school voucher proposal is excluded from the total, then support for NCLB Act programs would decline by $175 million, or almost one percent, compared to the current year … . The cumulative funding gap between actual funding and authorized funding since NCLB's first year in 2002 would grow to $85.7 billion in 2009 under the President's budget request."

At the same time that funding levels remain static or even regress, NCLB requirements continue to increase. Also increasing is the number of low-income children in the United States. While the national poverty rate fluctuates, the National Center for Children in Poverty at Columbia University reports the number of children living in poverty "increased by more than 11 percent between 2000 and 2005."

Antonia Cortese, executive vice president of the American Federation of Teachers, has challenged "Congress to pass an education funding bill that fixes chronic underfunding of Title I at a time when more children are living in poverty." Cortese worries that the chronic under-funding coupled with increased numbers of low-income students will completely undermine schools' abilities to educate their pupils.

Because entitlement grants alone cannot make up for budget needs in a financially struggling district, the state also offers competitive grants. Generally, to qualify for competitive grants, districts also must have the appropriate demographics: large populations of low-income students.

This qualification is not a problem for needy districts. However, such grants often stipulate a matching investment by the school district. By requiring matching funds, the state wants to be sure that the program will continue once the grant money runs out. Obviously, scraping together matching funds can be problematic for these schools, so the poorest districts most in need of these dollars and programs often do not qualify or apply for competitive grants.

A complication

Further complicating the grant game for needy districts is an inability to afford full-time grant writers. These districts often saddle building administrators, who are untrained in grant writing and already burdened with other duties, with the task of writing grant applications. Carrie VanAlstine, assistant superintendent of curriculum in Ball-Chatham CUSD 5, says successful grant writing "approaches an art form." Yet, she says, most administrators are self-taught grant writers who pick up tips at workshops and bidders conferences but mostly learn by trial and error.

Gary Lee Frye, development director at Lubbock-Cooper Independent School District just south of Lubbock, Texas, explains: "A new grant writer must learn the culture of the school or district and the basic system of proposal development — a steep learning curve." In poor districts, this learning curve could result in serious repercussions for students.

In wealthy districts, where grant monies are not needed to balance budgets, the resources are available to hire full-time grant writers who spend their days ferreting out available dollars and filling out the applications with a masterful flair. These grant-writing "artists" have the necessary time and skill to write successful applications. Even when wealthy districts choose not to invest in trained grant writers, they can afford the learning curve for new grant writers without facing bankruptcy.

For poor districts, winning competitive grants equates with survival. Consequently, struggling districts would find hiring professional grant writers a wise investment. Of course, finding the money for that salary — stated earlier at a median of $48,000 — can be difficult at best, particularly since the grant funds will not follow for a year or more. Once the grant monies begin rolling in, however, the position should quickly pay for itself.

In his district, Frye says, "[We] secured grant funding of more than $16.6 million for our school system and other rural Texas districts over the past eight years."

Districts that can not find the resources to hire grant writers and continue to rely on administrators to apply for grants may ultimately lose more than just funds. Chuck Hoots, principal at Springfield (Illinois) High School, observes that relying on administrators to write grants takes them away from their primary purpose, i.e. helping faculty, staff and students to succeed.

It is imperative that schools have strong, engaged building leadership if they are to succeed in their mission. Requiring principals to write grants is not making the best use of their time.

Frye points out that his district could have assigned grant writing tasks to "personnel assigned to other duties, but if so, the tasks might have received inadequate attention or fallen through the cracks altogether."

Still, Springfield SD 186 does leave some grant-writing duties in the hands of building principals. Consequently, Hoots has spent many nights and weekends filling out grant applications. Because of the unstable nature of grants — the money may dry up at any time — Hoots prefers applying for one-time grants, particularly those that supply much needed technology, computer hardware and computer software funds. The speed at which technology becomes obsolete, Hoots says, makes keeping pace with up-to-date equipment a constant struggle. Fortunately, he notes, technology grants are plentiful.

However, time is not plentiful for busy administrators, and locating available grants is a time-consuming process. While ISBE does supply districts with some grant information, their list of available grants is nowhere near exhaustive. Searching out grants requires surfing the Internet and networking with other grant writers. Once an appropriate grant is located, the writer must begin immediately.

Susan Hart-Hester, author of "Funding Improvement: Resources for High-Quality Professional Development Are Available — If You Know Where to Look," writes: "A stumbling block for many busy educators is the short response time for many federal proposals. Typically, the due date for a response to an RFP (Request for Proposal) is within 30 to 45 days." Full-time grant writers have the ability to overcome these obstacles.

Overcoming obstacles

One way for principals to overcome some of the obstacles in obtaining competitive grants is to band together with their peers in neighboring districts to apply for group grants. Such a scenario can have benefits for all districts involved.

First, filling out the paperwork during the application process is labor-intensive. By divvying that work up among several people, it can be done quickly and efficiently and ease everyone's burden. Secondly, schools that might not otherwise qualify for a particular grant can piggyback on the schools that do qualify. For example, a district may have too much wealth to qualify for a grant on its own, but when its finances are averaged in with those of poorer districts, it meets the financial criteria.

Such was the case for Ball-Chatham a few years ago when VanAlstine participated in a group grant writing project. On its own, Ball-Chatham would have been too wealthy to qualify for the grant, but as one of a group of districts working together, they met the criteria. In return, the other districts were able to take advantage of VanAlstine's assistance and expertise in applying for the grant. Everyone won as a result of working together and each district received funds for several years for professional development in the use of technology in the classroom.

Another option is to hire independent contractors to complete the application process. This approach has several appealing qualities for needy districts. For one, independent contractors often will require payment for their services only if grants are awarded. Thus districts have nothing to lose. They are not out employee time or money if the grant is denied.

In addition, independent contractors are usually grant-writing "artists" who invest a great deal of time and effort in learning the skill and do not enjoy working for free. Completing an application for a new district can take between 40 and 60 hours. With such a hefty investment of time, these independent contractors are highly motivated to complete winning proposals.

Grant writer Len Onken, who also teaches physical education at Glenwood High School in the Ball-Chatham district, attributes his success in obtaining grants for districts to his ability to "sell an idea." Onken says the writer must conceptualize what the district is going to do with the funding, put that concept into clear, vivid language, and then sell it to the grant readers. To sell it, the grant writer must support the idea with documented research. Because the whole process can take months, and the application is usually only open for 30 to 45 days after the grant is offered, it should be started during the school year prior to making application.

In recent years, Onken has written successful grant applications for The Truants Alternative and Optional Educational Program for several districts in Central Illinois. The funds from this grant have helped districts reach out to students who might otherwise disappear from school without anyone taking notice. Helping districts help kids has been very gratifying for Onken.

"Writing grants is about relationships with people, not just money," he says. "I've made many friends doing this job. Knowing that a friend might lose his job if I don't come through with the grant money motivates me to do my best."

Still, districts sometimes decide they can no longer afford his services. In such cases, the program just disappears from the district. It is difficult to sit quietly by and watch successful programs vanish for lack of money, Onken says.

What lies ahead

Unfortunately, good news on the school funding front is scarce. The federal grant known as the Perkins Act, which funds career and technical education programs, faces extinction after next year. While it is unlikely Congress will approve this budget item deletion, a reduction in funding is probable. Such a cut could prove disastrous for students who thrive in these programs.

Cindy Stover, director of the Capital Area Career Center in Sangamon County, has worked in technical education for 28 years. Despite the importance of technical education programs for students, the workforce and the economy, these programs have been struggling to survive for many years, she observes. With today's NCLB requirements and the emphasis on four-year college for all, Stover worries that dropout rates will increase.

"Career and tech ed classes keep a lot of kids in school and get them to graduate," Stover said. Eliminating or cutting grant funding for technical education programs could ultimately prove injurious to society.

Without grant monies, the public school system would collapse in all but the wealthiest communities. Consequently, the state of Illinois and the federal government will continue to dole out the dollars to maintain the status quo.

An additional solution might be to have ISBE create a one-time grant for every financially struggling district in the state. This grant would pay the first three years of a professional grant writer's salary. Such a grant would be a step toward evening the playing field in the grant-writing game.

By the time the grant money dries up, the position could be paying for itself and much, much more.

Reference

Susan Hart-Hester, "Funding Improvement: Resources for High-Quality Professional Development are Available — If You Know Where to Look," American School Board Journal, March 2004

Web references

http://www.cep-dc.org/
http://www.grantwriter.com/
http://www.igpa.uiuc.edu/
http://www.isbe.state.il.us/
http://www.nea.org/
http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_684.html
http://swz.salary.com/

IASB ARCHIVES HOME