First, the horrible spelling, grammar, and punctuation leap out at me immediately.
Me too. Good thing they’re not trying to improve writing ability!
I just read that grant in its entirety. I noticed one possible typo, but did not find other bad grammar or spelling.
The VERY FIRST SENTENCE has minor punctuation issues and refers to “Excellence in Leaning (sp) Through Technology”—I refuse to believe that the original Senate bill being referred to failed to spell the word “Learning” correctly in its title. :-)
The second sentence puts a space before the colon for no apparent reason.
“The moneys this school is requesting” ⇒ should probably be “money”, though I’d accept argument to the contrary.
“With request to …” ⇒ should probably be “With RESPECT to”
“This shows community support for improvement and a move forward with the support of a technology plan.” ⇒ You can tell what the writer is trying to say, but the writer is not actually saying it; the sentence is just broken.
“Teachers will...learn ho to integrate this technology” ⇒ should be “learn HOW to integrate...”
That’s just the first page, and it’s not even ALL the issues on the first page. Fortunately, the following pages are much better than the abstract page (which was painful). The second page is missing a bunch of hyphens—that’s a problem throughout—but otherwise not too bad.
Third page: “A desired outcome of this project is an increase in tile number of students taking high level science.” ⇒ change “tile number” to “total number” and possibly change “high level” to “high-level”
“By using MBL’s, less time is required” ⇒ change “MBL’s” to “MBLs”—it’s not a possessive.
“The purchase of this equipment would be in support of Colorado economy.” has a missing article; change it to ⇒ “would support THE Colorado economy”
“accommodate this set Up.” ⇒ “setup”.
Under IMPACT: “By obtaining these funds and implementing this program more students will be able to participate in hands on leaning” ⇒ again, it should be LEARNING, not LEANING. Also it’s “hands-on”, not “hands on”
“This science lab will be in place alter the grant period is over.” ⇒ AFTER the grant period, not ALTER.
Much of this suggests a very bad writer—less than 8th-grade level—who is using a spell-checker. But there some other mistakes that seem like the document might have been electronically scanned. For instance, the budget mentions “guides for teachers arid students” ⇒ should obviously be “teachers AND students” but I can’t imagine a human writer accidentally writing “arid” for “and” and “ri” does look an awful lot like “n”.
“By using MBL’s, less time is required” ⇒ change “MBL’s” to “MBLs”—it’s not a possessive.
If you look in an old enough style guide (the current standard is as you say), it will say to use an apostrophe when you pluralize an acronym. Wikipedia agrees.
Me too. Good thing they’re not trying to improve writing ability!
The VERY FIRST SENTENCE has minor punctuation issues and refers to “Excellence in Leaning (sp) Through Technology”—I refuse to believe that the original Senate bill being referred to failed to spell the word “Learning” correctly in its title. :-)
The second sentence puts a space before the colon for no apparent reason.
“The moneys this school is requesting” ⇒ should probably be “money”, though I’d accept argument to the contrary. “With request to …” ⇒ should probably be “With RESPECT to”
“This shows community support for improvement and a move forward with the support of a technology plan.” ⇒ You can tell what the writer is trying to say, but the writer is not actually saying it; the sentence is just broken.
“Teachers will...learn ho to integrate this technology” ⇒ should be “learn HOW to integrate...”
That’s just the first page, and it’s not even ALL the issues on the first page. Fortunately, the following pages are much better than the abstract page (which was painful). The second page is missing a bunch of hyphens—that’s a problem throughout—but otherwise not too bad.
Third page: “A desired outcome of this project is an increase in tile number of students taking high level science.” ⇒ change “tile number” to “total number” and possibly change “high level” to “high-level”
“By using MBL’s, less time is required” ⇒ change “MBL’s” to “MBLs”—it’s not a possessive.
“The purchase of this equipment would be in support of Colorado economy.” has a missing article; change it to ⇒ “would support THE Colorado economy”
“accommodate this set Up.” ⇒ “setup”.
Under IMPACT: “By obtaining these funds and implementing this program more students will be able to participate in hands on leaning” ⇒ again, it should be LEARNING, not LEANING. Also it’s “hands-on”, not “hands on”
“This science lab will be in place alter the grant period is over.” ⇒ AFTER the grant period, not ALTER.
Much of this suggests a very bad writer—less than 8th-grade level—who is using a spell-checker. But there some other mistakes that seem like the document might have been electronically scanned. For instance, the budget mentions “guides for teachers arid students” ⇒ should obviously be “teachers AND students” but I can’t imagine a human writer accidentally writing “arid” for “and” and “ri” does look an awful lot like “n”.
Agree with everything but:
If you look in an old enough style guide (the current standard is as you say), it will say to use an apostrophe when you pluralize an acronym. Wikipedia agrees.