CHECKLIST FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION (Scroll down for the Scoring Rubric)

Requirements
Comments
Y N
Application submitted online by due date
Y N
Evidence of CLTA membership  (minimum: this year and preceding year) – get E-mail confirmation from membership@clta.net
Y N
Received this grant within the last four years
Y N
Completed application form submitted online
Y N
Brief professional resume/CV submitted with application
Y N
Three letters of recommendation, submitted with application
Y N
Evidence that the nominee is currently employed as a teacher of WLOE*
Y N
Nominee lives in California or teaches in California
Y N
Assurance that upon completion of the travel and/or study, the recipient will present a report to the Membership at CLTA’s Annual Conference or will submit a written report for publication in the CLTA News. Please indicate intention in letter described below:
Y N
A letter written by the candidate describing the following:
Y N
Motivation for applying for this grant
Y N
How the grant will help the applicant to improve his/her teaching skills
Y N
Projected impact on the applicant’s students and classroom activities
xxxx

*WLOE: World LanguagesOother than EnglishReviewer: If this checklist is complete (all requirements met), proceed to scoring rubric below.

All Grant Applications must be submitted on line. Click here for the Online form.
For awards questions, contact Kevin Duffy at past.president@clta.net or Tanya Zaccone at exec-director@clta.net.

SCORING RUBRIC

Nominee’s Name or Number ______________________________

 

 Description

0

1
2
3
4
Points Awarded  Weight  Score
Motivation for applying for the grant No explanation of candidate’s motivation for applying for the grant Limited or vague  explanation of candidate’s motivation for applying for the grant, lacking detail Basic explanation of candidate’s motivation for applying for the grant, lacking detail Clear explanation of candidate’s motivation for applying for the grant,  which may lack specific detail Clear, specific and detailed explanation of candidate’s motivation for applying for the grant  X
4
 =
How the grant will help the applicant to improve teaching skills No explanation of how the grant will help the applicant to improve teaching skills Limited or vague explanation of how the grant will help the applicant to improve teaching skills Basic explanation of how the grant will help the applicant to improve teaching skills Clear explanation of how the candidate anticipates improving teaching practice Clear, specific and detailed explanation of how the candidate anticipates improving teaching practice  X

8

 =
Impact on applicant’s students and activities No explanation of impact on applicant’s students and activities Limited or vague explanation of impact on applicant’s students and activities Basic explanation of impact on applicant’s students and activities Clear explanation of impact on applicant’s students and activities Clear, specific, detailed explanation of impact on applicant’s students and activities  X

8

 =
Letters of recommendation support candidate’s participation in this specific grant No letters of recommendation – candidate not eligible Generic statement of support for candidate with no detail Generic statement of support for candidate which lacks significant detail relevant  to this grant program Current support for candidate’s motivation and anticipated outcome, which may lack specific detail Current specific and detailed support for candidate’s motivation and anticipated outcome  X
 4
 =
 TOTAL  =   _____/96
Also applying for a LangAbroD grant? YES NO (LangAbrod grants not available with Memorial Grant (formerly Mary DuFort); LangABroD not available for Italian scholarships for 2015 because travel funds are within California and are already included)_____________________________________ Granted LangAbrod? YES NO