Did some research. The claim that the proposals are poorly written leaps out at me as immediately true. Here's a website with successful grant applications, to be used as models to write them:

http://www.k12grants.org/samples/samples_index.htm

This is the first grant I pulled up (it's not the first, but it -was- the first I felt competent to evaluate, concerning primarily technology):

http://www.k12grants.org/samples/grantkay.pdf

First, the horrible spelling, grammar, and punctuation leap out at me immediately. Second, the claim in the post that grant proposals are written to describe what they're doing, rather than what they're intending to achieve, holds up, for this grant at least.

http://www.k12grants.org/samples/MH%20grant.pdf

This proposal is the best-written I encountered. It describes the specific problems it intends to resolve and the specific solutions it intends to use. Unfortunately, the only evidence it introduces is the evidence that there is a problem. It doesn't provide any evidence that its solutions work. Its stated "Method of Evaluation", moreover, exactly mirrors the claims made in this post - it evaluates whether or not its solutions are implemented, NOT whether or not the problem is solved. (Goal #5 seems like an exception, but remember the stated problem is mental health issues.

http://www.k12grants.org/samples/TARGET.pdf

This proposal is the best I've encountered. It is horribly written, however. (You can skip past the pages and pages of documentation about how exactly the money will be spent to read the goals.) The accountability section has this (this is a proposal, essentially, to buy more modern computers for students and teachers, and to hire support staff):

We will begin by taking benchmarks of our current situation with regard to number of computers per student (including the capability of that equipment), number of teachers and students currently using the PLATO or other learning systems, number of teachers using the Web as a training and communication tool, and student scores on the TABE and PLATO assessment tests. On a quarterly basis, we will review computer ratios and teachers/students using PLATO. Every semester we will use questionnaires and surveys, as well as observation, of staff to get feedback on the impact of professional development activities. Student scores will be reviewed after every semester. Results will be tabulated and communicated to school staff, superintendents, Advisory Boards and Texans Can! staff annually. Where indicated, adjustments in curriculum and instruction will be made to ensure that student performance continues to improve

Note that the accountability, as it pertains to this grant, is - wait for it - to make sure the grant money is spent as expected. You can change curriculum and instruction -without- the computers, remember. (I think this is a pretty sensible grant request, but the accountability measures it proposes provide no actual accountability. "Did we say what we were going to do? Yes? Then our grant was a success!")

http://www.k12grants.org/samples/FLAP%20Narrative.pdf

Setting aside the fact that I've seen better writing from middle school students, this is actually a decently written grant. It has specific goals, implementations, and even has accountability. (Although it does seem confused about who or what is accountable to who or what; the accountability section reads rather like the author's understanding of accountability meant the ability of students to measure their own improvements in performance. Notably omitted is a suggestion that the program's success/improvement rate be compared to non-program success/improvement rates.)

http://www.k12grants.org/samples/2003_Library&Literacy.pdf

A well-written grant I can't find fault with. (Except maybe its questionable notion of scientific evidence.)

So - some of the grants here definitely show symptoms of the problems indicated in the post. Some don't. A couple of these had no business being granted. ALL of these grants were successful applications - that is, the grants were granted.

After this exercise, my position shifted from "This post is credible" to "This post exaggerates the extent of the problem to some degree, but remains a valid criticism of the grant system as it exists."

And I tried to find a grant similar to the iPod/Makeover grant, and found this:

http://www.msmagiera.com/ipad-grant

Okay, not exactly analogous, as it at least pertains to education. However, given the grant's self-evaluation criteria, student scores could plummet and the project could still call itself an overall success. (Actual improvement in student abilities only accounts for a fourth of their apparently unweighted criteria.)