Executive Office of Education
EVALUATION CRITERIA SCORECARD
Agency Staff use only (This document will be used to evaluate all responses submitted to this Solicitation) Updated
April 2013
Name of Bidder:
Name of Reviewer(s):
Date Reviewed:
Required Qualifications Criteria (Bidder must receive a “yes” on all the following criteria to move on to the next evaluation section)
Applicant must be applying from or working in partnership with one of the Commonwealth’s 26 Gateway Cities.
Applicant must be a non-profit organization.
Applicant must submit a complete application consisting of no more than 15 page narrative and FY15 and FY 16 budgets with justification.
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Scoring rubric: Outstanding: Application materials is complete, suggest exemplary qualifications, providing compelling, clear, and well-documented evidence of expertise. Excellent: Application materials are complete and suggest
solid qualifications, providing clear and well-documented evidence of expertise. Very Good: Application materials are complete and suggest adequate qualifications, providing clear evidence of expertise. Good: Evidence of
expertise or qualification in some areas is unclear or unsubstantiated by supporting documentation. Some required elements are missing. Satisfactory: Little evidence of qualification. Many required elements are missing.
Unsatisfactory: Qualifications is not applicable to request; elements missing / non-responsive to request.
Gateway Cities Education Agenda English Language Learners Enrichment
Academies Grant Program-- Fund Code 376
Score
Unsatisfactory
0 pts
Score
Satisfactory
1 pt
Score
Good
2 pts
Score
Very Good
3 pts
Score
Excellent
4 pts
Score
Outstanding
5 pts
Multiplier
Points Awarded
(Score 0–5 x
Multiplier)
Maximum
Points Available
(5 x Multiplier)
Additional Evaluation Criteria:
The Bidder's narrative thoroughly and clearly describes the rationale for
the proposed Enrichment Academy, including the population of
students to be served, why this population was selected and how
specific students could be invited to participate.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provided a thorough description of, and statistical data
regarding, the ELL population in the district – with particular detail about
middle and high school students.
(x1)
5
The Bidder clearly describes ELL subpopulations with evidence of their
specific needs - for which Summer Enrichment Academy could have a
valuable impact.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provided a compelling description of:
•Potential outreach efforts to students, family members, educators and
community members.
•Recruitment and selection processes.
•Retention strategies, including incentives.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provided robust description of how the proposed programs
will address the specific needs of the selected populations of students
and also result in specific outcomes.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provided comprehensive information about proposed
instructional strategies and curricula, including different types of
learning opportunities (project-based, experiential, and/or service
learning)
(x1)
5
The Bidder provided comprehensive information about activities to
celebrate the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of students and
increase cultural competency of students and teachers.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provided a detailed schedule - at least 6 hours/day, for a
minimum of 120 hours total.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provided comprehensive information about the
transportation needs of students - and the services to be provided.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provides a robust description of how the proposed
Enrichment Academies will complement/supplement existing efforts in
the school, district, or community to increase the English
language/literacy skills and student achievement of target population and would be aligned to existing school and district improvement plans
and statewide initiatives.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provides a comprehensive, diverse, inclusive list of planning
team members, with chair/co-chairs identified. (Suggested members
include: district administrators; school principals; teachers across grade
levels and subject areas; partners from charter schools, public and
private institutions of higher education, non-profit community-based
organizations; students; parents and family members.)
(x1)
5
The Bidder provides an excellent description of the specific
responsibilities of each planning team member. (Suggestions include:
outreach to students and families; recruiting; developing curriculum &
instructional strategies; developing PD; working with partners;
managing grant funding; serving as contact for evaluator for data
collection and submission.)
(x1)
5
The Bidder identifies coordinator(s) and/or individuals who will be
responsible for operating the Enrichment Academy and provides a
detailed description of specific responsibilities, with supporting
resumes/CVs as appendices.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provides a comprehensive and compelling description of the
processes for selecting instructors and the professional development
and training to be provided prior to and during the programs.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provides a convincing and detailed description of the levels
of individual, collective and organizational capacity to design the
programs and operate them effectively. Persuasive evidence of school
and district support is provided.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provides an excellent description of the partner
organizations and their specific responsibilities, including how they will
actively participate in both the planning and operation of the proposed
programs. Detailed and convincing information about partners’
successes improving outcomes for ELLs is provided.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provides a detailed description of the potential barriers to
the successful design of the Summer Enrichment Academy and
thorough description of how the applicant(s) and partners will address
these barriers.
(x1)
5
The Bidder identifies anticipated outcomes of the Enrichment Academy
that are wide-ranging and clearly identified according to multiple
measures, including, but not limited to: English language fluency,
comprehension, reading and writing, student confidence and
engagement, exit from ELL status, and retention and graduation rates.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provides a thorough description of the pre- and postassessment strategies for students participating in the proposed
programs.
(x1)
5
The Bidder provides a thorough description of the proposed ongoing
measurements of student progress on multiple outcomes.
(x1)
5
The Bidder identifies the individual(s) responsible for conducting
ongoing assessments of student progress and coordinating all activities
related to the statewide evaluation of Enrichment Academies and it
seems likely that this person will be able to effectively fulfill these
responsibilities.
(x1)
5
The Bidder’s proposed budget expenditures clearly demonstrate
appropriate use of funds.
(x1)
5
The Bidder’s budget expenditures are clearly tied to the application
narrative.
(x1)
5
The Bidder’s budget justification includes brief but precise descriptions
that clearly justify each expense. There is clear reference to required
activities and how these will benefit students.
(x1)
5
Total:
Comments:
120