ConnectED School Connectivity Program

Transcription

1 ConnectED School Connectivity Program K Grants Office, LLC. All rights reserved. Prepared for Sprint At the request of Michelle Chisholm Prepared by Dan Casion Monday, March 17, 2014 This report is intended to accompany a consultative session with a Grants Office consultant. Contact your representative to schedule a call.

2 About this Funding Report This report has been developed by Grants Office, a national grants development services firm based in Rochester, NY, to help school districts identify and pursue grant programs that can fund both the technology they need to access the connectivity provided by ConnectEd and the contextual resources that will enable administrators, faculty, and students to maximize the potential of their ConnectEd programs. Grants Office offers a number of additional free and fee-based resources to help schools navigate the landscape of grant funding. Free Information Visit to link to a number of free resources, including: A free trial of Grants Office s UPstream grants knowledge base Web-based trainings on a funding for a range of technology-rich projects Grants Office s online magazine, FUNDED All schools are welcome to participate in these free resources. Funder Identification and Grants Consultation Funder identification and consultation are available in two levels of support, a la carte research and unlimited support. A la carte funder identification by project Click on Request Research in the UPstream portal, and you can request a report of funders for a specific project. In about a week, a Grants Office consultant will deliver the report, with details on funding opportunities from federal, state, and foundation sources based on the project information you provided. The consultant will also review your report with you in a follow up call of approximately one hour, to answer any questions you have and help you target your best prospects. This service costs $695 per request, and you will need to be asked to provide a valid purchase order number before the request can be processed. In order to make a la carte research requests, you must also have a current subscription to Grants Office s UPstream grants knowledge base (subscriptions start at $795 per year). Unlimited annual support BEST VALUE! Unlimited support provides any employee of participating districts and their affiliated local educational foundations with unlimited access to Grants Office consultants through the Grants Office Helpdesk. Typical Helpdesk support includes: Page 2 of 58

3 Conducting basic funder research for identified projects (resulting in a funding report like this one) Providing insightful analyses of grant programs Providing rationale for grant recommendations Participating in conference calls to discuss grantseeking strategy Reviewing and supplying useful feedback on grants written internally by school or foundation personnel Procuring RFPs, grant contact information, funding histories, web addresses, etc., upon request Helpdesk requests can be submitted by , by phone, or through the UPstream portal. The Helpdesk will be available to receive calls from 9AM to 5PM Eastern Standard Time. The fee for Unlimited support is based on the number of students served by the district as follows: Total Students Annual Cost <2,500 $2,900 2,500-5,000 $4,600 5,001-10,000 $7,100 10,001-20,000 $14,200 >20,000 $18,900 Unlimited support program participation runs from July 1 June 30, and the fee will be prorated appropriately for members that register for services after July 1. Proposal Development Any district may also request proposal development services through Grants Office. Fees for proposal development are based on the complexity of the grant application and the anticipated level of effort required to develop a compliant proposal. Contact Grants Office for proposal development pricing. Contact for a Quote To discuss which grants support services might be right for your district, please forward your name, school entity, county, intermediate unit, number of buildings and student enrollment information to the Grants Support Program helpdesk at helpdesk@grantsoffice.com, or call (800) , and a Grants Development Consultant will reply promptly. Page 3 of 58

4 Grants Office Funding Report Mobilizing to Access Grant Funding...5 Grant Pathways... 5 Grant Types... 5 Grant Sources... 6 Determining the Desirability of a Grant... 6 Anatomy of a Grant Summary... 7 Grant Program Summaries... 8 Page 4 of 58

5 Mobilizing to Access Grant Funding Each year, the federal government makes over $400 billion available for a wide range of projects. Much of that is available to a group of entities referred to as State, Local, nonprofit, and other. As distinguished from research funding recipients, these government agencies, schools, and hospitals receive the largest share (in terms of dollars) of federal funding annually. Grant Pathways Funding at the federal level comes from 26 grantmaking agencies, and grants are either: Direct funds go directly from the federal funding agency to local recipients; or Pass-through funds go through the state, and possibly even a regional entity, before they are made available to the local entity. States may still have to apply for these funds and often keep a portion to cover administrative costs, but then each state will maintain its own re-granting process, timelines, and priorities. It s important to be aware of whether you are directly eligible to apply to a particular grant opportunity (and receive funds from it), or whether the opportunity is a pass-through grant for the state, and you will need to follow up with the state to determine what you need to do to apply for funds for your project. Grant Types Another distinction to be aware of is the type of grant a particular program offers. A grant may be: Formula Funding allocations are based on a formula such as student poverty (No Child Left Behind Grants), risk assessments (State Homeland Security Grants) or number of acute care hospital beds (Hospital Emergency Preparedness Grants). As long as an eligible applicant completes an application in the timeline and format required by the funder, they re virtually assured of receiving the money their formula has determined they re eligible for; Competitive applications are competitively scored based on a set of objective and/or subjective criteria, and the score the proposal receives factors in to the award allocation; or Earmark grant awards are decided at the legislative level during the budgeting process. You will need to apply to your local Congressman or State Representative to obtain these funds. This Research Report may contain direct and pass-through grants as well as formula, competitive, and earmark programs. Each of these distinctions will have implications as the value of the program to your organization and the potential to raise new funding for your project. Page 5 of 58

6 Grant Sources Grants typically come from one of three sources, including: Federal issuing from one of the 26 Federal grantmaking agencies. These grants tend to be large (often $250,000 to $500,000 in size) and restricted to broad, national priorities; State issuing from a state agency, either using funds derived from within the state or passing through funds received from elsewhere (most often a federal agency). These grants tend to be more accessible, smaller than federal grants, and more in line with state priorities; and Private Foundations and Corporations provide approximately $35 billion each year in funding, and they tend to be the most responsive to locally developed projects and local needs. All three of these sources may figure in to your funding strategy. A common approach is to fund the bulk of a project with federal and state funds, then apply to foundations to support the local elements that fall outside the parameters of the government funders, or to cover the required matching costs. Determining the Desirability of a Grant You may not have the resources or even the desire or need to write all the grants identified in this document. So, it may be necessary to qualify which grants to which you d like to apply for the project, and which you ll leave for another time or another project. The following criteria may be helpful in determining which grants to pursue: Total funding available gives you an idea how broad the program will be and how competitive; Application burden some programs require 100 page narrative, while others may look for 10 or less; Matching requirements similarly, some programs require a dollar for dollar match, while others may require a 5% match or no cost sharing at all; Scale you don t want to write 1,000 $5,000 requests to get your $500,000 project funded or lock yourself into a lot of extra activities that you didn t intend just to get what you needed; Collaboration/partnering requirements beyond what you have in place are a factor to consider; Lead time more lead time generally equals more time to develop the project and articulate that in the grant application six weeks is good, and three weeks is almost essential; Track record with the funder generally more important or local funders than federal sources, but a consideration nonetheless. Page 6 of 58

7 Anatomy of a Grant Summary The grant summaries contained in this report contain several common data elements, intended to provide you with an overview of each program and enough information to determine whether a given program warrants serious investigation of the guidance document and other informational materials on the program. Each grant summary contains: Grant Title - the title of the grant as defined by the funder, with any common abbreviations in parentheses. If the grant is focused on a particular state, the state name will also be in parentheses. CFDA# - the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number assigned by the funder, including the two numbers representing the primary funding agency (followed by a decimal point), and the remaining numbers (and letters) representing the agency s program. If no CFDA number exists, the entry will read: None Authority - the definition of the funding source, including the federal or state agency and sub-agency or name of the foundation making the grant. Summary - relevant information about the grant program, funding priorities, and application process, including highlights of the grant program and information on the priorities and application process. Eligibility - the types of applicants that are eligible to apply for the grant including standard categories of eligible applicants, as well as any special eligibility criteria that the program requires. Award Information - the total funding available, matching requirements, allocation formula, and any other relevant items that impact the award amount. History of Funding - any available information on past years funding. If no information is available, the entry will read: Not Available Deadline - additional information on the deadline, including Letter of intent/full application deadlines or submission timeframes for different media, reflecting any nuances in the application deadline, as indicated in the guidance or other sources. In the event that a grant program s application deadline has passed, a future deadline may be forecasted based on historical information and the expectation that the program will re-open for application in the future. Potential grant applicants should consider both current and anticipated grant opportunities as part of a successful long-term grantseeking strategy. Both forecasted and official deadline dates are subject to change at any time. Additional Information - relevant information not suited for other fields Contact Information - information on program contact(s), including phone, , and a URL which points as directly as possible to the program Web page or guidance document. Page 7 of 58

8 Grant Program Summaries Federal Programs: 1. 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) 2. Investing in Innovation (i3) - Development Grants 3. Race to the Top: District Competition (RttT-D) 4. Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST) 5. Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program (IAL) 6. Youth CareerConnect Program 7. YouthBuild Grants Foundations: 8. The Coca-Cola Foundation 9. Dollar General Literacy Foundation 10. Wal-Mart and SAM'S CLUB Foundation 11. Charles Lafitte Foundation: Education 12. McCarthey Dressman Education Foundation 13. The Kroger Co. Foundation (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia) 14. Gladys Brooks Foundation (Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont) 15. Campbell Soup Foundation (New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, California, Washington, Connecticut, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Illinois, Florida, Utah, Pennsylvania) 16. Bayer USA Foundation (California, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia) 17. Winn-Dixie Stores Foundation (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) 18. Price Chopper's Golub Foundation (New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and New Hampshire) 19. Xerox Foundation (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Puerto Rico) 20. Dominion Foundation (Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin) Page 8 of 58

9 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) CFDA Number(s): Authority: United States Department of Education, Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs Summary: This program supports the creation of community learning centers that provide academic enrichment opportunities during non-school hours for children, particularly students who attend high-poverty and lowperforming schools. The program helps students meet state and local student standards in core academic subjects, such as reading and math; offers students a broad array of enrichment activities that can complement their regular academic programs; and offers literacy and other educational services to the families of participating children. Each eligible entity that receives an award from the state may use the funds to carry out a broad array of before- and after-school activities (including those held during summer recess periods) to advance student achievement. These activities include: Remedial education activities and academic enrichment learning programs, including those which provide additional assistance to students to allow the students to improve their academic achievement; Mathematics and science education activities; Arts and music education activities; Entrepreneurial education programs; Tutoring services, including those provided by senior citizen volunteers, and mentoring programs; Programs that provide after-school activities for limited English proficient (LEP) students and that emphasize language skills and academic achievement; Recreational activities; Telecommunications and technology education programs; Expanded library service hours; Programs that promote parental involvement and family literacy; Programs that provide assistance to students who have been truant, suspended, or expelled to allow them to improve their academic achievement; Drug and violence prevention programs; Counseling programs; and Character education programs. Eligibility: Awards are made to State Education Agencies (SEAs). Local education agencies (LEAs) and nonprofit organization may apply to states for subgrants. For this program, eligible entity means a local educational Page 9 of 58

10 agency, community-based organization, another public or private entity, or a consortium of two or more of such agencies, organizations, or entities. Award Information: Award amounts vary. Deadline Description: Check the individual state website for the official deadline, by clicking on the state. Not all states have developed program websites. In those cases, links to the main State Dept of Education websites are generally provided. History of Funding: State administered 21st CCLC Database: Additional Information: States must give priority to applications that are jointly submitted by a local educational agency and a community-based organization or other public or private entity. Contact: Pilla Parker, Team Leader 21st-Century Community Learning Centers - U.S. Department of Education, OESE 400 Maryland Ave. S.W., Rm. 3E247 LBJ Federal Office Building Washington, DC Phone: (202) Fax: (202) stCCLC@ed.gov Visit Website: *Consult the program guidance by following the links provided at the above URLs. Additional relevant POCs are provided in the program guidance. Page 10 of 58

11 Investing in Innovation (i3) - Development Grants CFDA Number(s): C, P Authority: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement Summary: The i3 program is designed to generate and validate solutions to persistent educational challenges and to support the expansion of effective solutions across the country to serve substantially larger numbers of students. Development Grants provide funding to support the development or testing of practices that are supported by evidence of promise or strong theory and whose efficacy should be systematically studied. Development grants will support new or substantially more effective practices for addressing widely shared challenges. Development projects are novel and significant nationally, not projects that simply implement existing practices in additional locations or support needs that are primarily local in nature. All Development grantees must evaluate the effectiveness of the project at the level of scale proposed in the application. There are six absolute priorities under the FY14 Development Grants competition. Each of the six absolute priorities constitutes its own funding category. An applicant for a development grant must choose one of the six absolute priorities and one of the subparts under the chosen priority to address in its pre-application, and full application, if the applicant is invited to, or chooses to, submit a full application. The absolute priorities are: 1. Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals - Projects must address one of the following priority areas: Increasing the equitable access to effective teachers or principals for low income and high-need students, which may include increasing the equitable distribution of effective teachers or principals for low-income and high need students across schools. Extending highly effective teachers reach to serve more students, including strategies such as new course designs, staffing models, technology platforms, or new opportunities for collaboration that allow highly effective teachers to reach more students, or approaches or tools that reduce administrative and other burden while maintaining or improving effectiveness. 2. Improving Low-Performing Schools - Projects should address one of the following priority areas: Recruiting, developing, or retaining highly effective staff, specifically teachers, principals, or instructional leaders, to work in low performing schools. Page 11 of 58

12 Implementing programs, supports, or other strategies that improve students non-cognitive abilities (e.g., motivation, persistence, or resilience) and enhance student engagement in learning or mitigate the effects of poverty, including physical, mental, or emotional health issues, on student engagement in learning. 3. Improving Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities - Projects should address one of the following priority areas: Designing and implementing teacher evaluation systems that define and measure effectiveness of special education teachers and related service providers. Designing and implementing strategies that improve student achievement for students with disabilities in inclusive settings, including strategies that improve learning and developmental outcomes (i.e., academic, social, emotional, or behavioral) and the appropriate transition from restrictive settings to inclusive settings or general education classes or programs, and appropriate strategies to prevent unnecessary suspensions and expulsions. 4. Improving Academic Outcomes for English Learners - Projects should address the following priority: Aligning and implementing the curriculum and instruction used in grades 6 12 for language development and content courses to provide sufficient exposure to, engagement in, and acquisition of academic language and literacy practices necessary for preparing ELs to be college- and career ready. 5. Effective use of Technology - Projects should address one or more of the following priority areas: Providing access to learning experiences that are personalized, adaptive, and self-improving in order to optimize the delivery of instruction to learners with a variety of learning needs. Integrating technology with the implementation of rigorous college- and career-ready standards to increase student achievement (as defined in this notice), student engagement, and teacher efficacy, such as by providing embedded, real-time assessment and feedback to students and teachers. 6. Serving Rural Communities Under this priority the Department will provide funding to projects addressing one of the absolute priorities established for the 2014 Development i3 competitions and under which the majority of students to be served are enrolled in rural local educational agencies. Eligibility: Entities eligible to apply for i3 grants include either of the following: An LEA. A partnership between a nonprofit organization and: (a) One or more LEAs; or (b) A consortium of schools. To be eligible for an award, an eligible applicant must Page 12 of 58

13 (a) Have significantly closed the achievement gaps between groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA (economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities); or (b) Have demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement for all groups of students described in that section; Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as high school graduation rates or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality teachers or principals, as demonstrated with meaningful data; Demonstrate that it has established one or more partnerships with the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, and that organizations in the private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring results to scale; and In the case of an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization, provide in the application the names of the LEAs with which the nonprofit organization will partner, or the names of the schools in the consortium with which it will partner. If an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization intends to partner with additional LEAs or schools that are not named in the application, it must describe in the application the demographic and other characteristics of these LEAs and schools and the process it will use to select them. Award Information: The total amount anticipated under the i3 competition in FY14 is $138,800,000. Development grants will be made in amounts up to $3,000, development grant awards are anticipated. The project period is up to 60 months. The i3 program includes a statutory requirement for a private-sector match for all i3 grantees. While an applicant must secure 15 percent of its Federal grant award to be eligible for an i3 Development grant, the timeframe in which an applicant must secure and submit evidence of the required private sector matching funds has been expanded. In the past, the highest-rated applicants had only approximately 30 days to secure 100 percent of their required matches and become grantees, which proved difficult for both applicants and potential private-sector funders. While all of the past highest rated i3 applicants successfully secured their private-sector matches, the Department is eager to improve the matching process to facilitate deeper public-private partnerships. Therefore, for the FY 2014 i3 competition, each highest-rated applicant, as identified by the Department following peer review of full applications, must submit evidence of 50 percent of the required private sector match prior to the awarding of an i3 grant. An applicant must provide evidence of the remaining 50 percent of the required private-sector match no later than six months after the project start date. The grant will be terminated if the grantee does not secure its private-sector match by the established deadline. By decreasing the amount of the required match that must be secured before the i3 award can be made, the burden for both applicants and private-sector funders will be reduced, which in turn will foster improved collaboration. Deadline Description: The deadline to submit the notice of intent for a pre-application is April 3, The deadline to submit a pre-application is April 14, Similar deadlines are anticipated annually. History of Funding: Previous awards under the Investing in Innovation Fund (I3) program are available at: Page 13 of 58

14 Additional Information: Three types of grants are available under the i3 program: Scale-up grants, Validation grants, and Development grants. 1. Scale-up grants provide funding to scale up practices, strategies, or programs for which there is strong evidence (as defined in the 2010 i3 NFP) that the proposed practice, strategy, or program will have a statistically significant effect on improving student achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, increasing high school graduation rates, or increasing college enrollment and completion rates, and that the effect of implementing the proposed practice, strategy, or program will be substantial and important. An applicant for a Scale-up grant may also demonstrate success through an intermediate variable strongly correlated with these outcomes, such as teacher or principal effectiveness. An applicant for a Scale-up grant must estimate the number of students to be reached by the proposed project and provide evidence of its capacity to reach the proposed number of students during the course of the grant. In addition, an applicant for a Scale-up grant must provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to scale up to a State, regional, or national level, working directly or through partners either during or following the grant period. 2. Validation grants provide funding to support practices, strategies, or programs that show promise, but for which there is currently only moderate evidence (as defined in the 2010 i3 NFP) that the proposed practice, strategy, or program will have a statistically significant effect on improving student achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, increasing high school graduation rates, or increasing college enrollment and completion rates and that, with further study, the effect of implementing the proposed practice, strategy, or program may prove to be substantial and important. Thus, applications for Validation grants do not need to have the same level of research evidence to support the proposed project as is required for Scale-up grants. An applicant for a Validation grant may also demonstrate success through an intermediate variable strongly correlated with these outcomes, such as teacher or principal effectiveness. An applicant for a Validation grant must estimate the number of students to be reached by the proposed project and provide evidence of its capacity to reach the proposed number of students during the course of the grant. In addition, an applicant for a Validation grant must provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to scale up to a State or regional level, working directly or through partners either during or following the grant period. 3. Development grants provide funding to support high-potential and relatively untested practices, strategies, or programs whose efficacy should be systematically studied. An applicant must provide evidence that the proposed practice, strategy, or program, or one similar to it, has been attempted previously, albeit on a limited scale or in a limited setting, and yielded promising results that suggest that more formal and systematic study is warranted. An applicant must provide a rationale for the proposed practice, strategy, or program that is based on research findings or reasonable hypotheses, including related research or theories in education and other sectors. Thus, applications for Development grants do not need to provide the same level of evidence to support the proposed project as is required for Validation or Scale-up grants. An applicant for a Development grant must estimate the number of students to be served by the project, and provide evidence of the applicant s ability to implement and appropriately evaluate the proposed project and, if positive results are obtained, its capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to further develop and bring the project to a larger scale directly or through partners either during or following the grant period. Page 14 of 58

15 Contact: Kelly Terpak U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW. Room 4W111 Washington, DC Phone: (202) Fax: (202) Visit Website: Misc: *Consult the program guidance by following the links provided at the above URLs. Additional relevant POCs are provided in the program guidance. Page 15 of 58

16 Race to the Top: District Competition (RttT-D) CFDA Number(s): Authority: U.S. Department of Education Summary: The Race to the Top State competitions provided incentives to States to adopt bold and comprehensive reforms in elementary and secondary education and laid the foundation for unprecedented innovation. A total of 46 States and the District of Columbia put together plans to implement college- and career-ready standards, use data systems to guide learning and teaching, evaluate and support teachers and school leaders, and turn around their lowest-performing schools. The purpose of the Race to the Top District competition is to build on the momentum of other Race to the Top competitions by encouraging bold, innovative reform at the local level. The Race to the Top District competition invites applicants to demonstrate how they can personalize education for all students in their schools. The Race to the Top District competition is aimed squarely at classrooms and the all-important relationship between educators and students. An LEA or consortium of LEAs receiving an award under this competition will build on the experience of States and districts in implementing reforms in the four core educational assurance areas through Race to the Top and other key programs. A successful applicant will provide teachers the information, tools, and supports that will enable them to meet the needs of each student and substantially accelerate and deepen each student s learning. These LEAs will have the policies, systems, infrastructure, capacity, and culture to enable teachers, teacher teams, and school leaders to continuously focus on improving individual student achievement and closing achievement gaps. These LEAs will also make equity and access a priority and aim to prepare each student to master the content and skills required for college- and career-readiness, provide each student the opportunity to pursue a rigorous course of study, and accelerate and deepen students learning through attention to their individual needs. As important, they will create opportunities for students to identify and pursue areas of personal academic interest all while ensuring that each student masters critical areas identified in college- and career-ready standards or college- and career-ready high school graduation requirements. In 2013, the district competition will have five absolute priorities. Personalized Learning Environments: To meet this priority, an applicant must coherently and comprehensively address how it will build on the core educational assurance areas to create learning environments that are designed to significantly improve learning and teaching through the personalization of strategies, tools, and supports for students and educators that are aligned with college- and career-ready standards or college- and career-ready graduation requirements; accelerate student achievement and deepen student learning by meeting the academic needs of each student; increase the effectiveness of educators; expand student access to the most effective Page 16 of 58

17 educators; decrease achievement gaps across student groups; and increase the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared for college and careers. Non-Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States: To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students are in non-rural LEAs in States that received awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States: To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students are in rural LEAs in States that received awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States: To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students are in rural LEAs in States that received awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. Non-Rural LEAs in non-race to the Top States: To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students are in non-rural LEAs in States that did not receive awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. Rural LEAs in non-race to the Top States: To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students are in rural LEAs in States that did not receive awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. The 2013 competitive preference priority is for: Results, Resource Alignment, and Integrated Services: The Department will give priority to an applicant based on the extent to which the applicant proposes to integrate public or private resources in a partnership designed to augment the schools resources by providing additional student and family supports to schools that address the social, emotional, or behavioral needs of the participating students, giving highest priority to students in participating schools with high-need students. To meet this priority, an applicant s proposal does not need to be comprehensive and may provide student and family supports that focus on a subset of these needs. Eligibility: To be eligible for a grant under this competition: An applicant must be an individual LEA or a consortium of individual LEAs from one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. LEAs may apply for all or a portion of their schools, for specific grades, or for subject-area bands (e.g., lowest-performing schools, secondary schools, schools connected by a feeder pattern, middle school math, or preschool through third grade). Consortia may include LEAs from multiple States. Each LEA may participate in only one Race to the Top District application. Successful applicants (i.e., grantees) from past Race to the Top District competitions may not apply for additional funding. An applicant must serve a minimum of 2,000 participating students or may serve fewer than 2,000 participating students provided those students are served by a consortium of at least 10 LEAs and at least 75 percent of the students served by each LEA are participating students. An applicant must base its requested award amount on the number of participating students it proposes to serve at the time of application or within the first 100 days of the grant award. Page 17 of 58

18 At least 40 percent of participating students across all participating schools must be students from low-income families, based on eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, or other poverty measures that LEAs use to make awards under section 1113(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). If an applicant has not identified all participating schools at the time of application, it must provide an assurance that within 100 days of the grant award it will meet this requirement. An applicant must demonstrate its commitment to the core educational assurance areas, including, for each LEA included in an application, an assurance signed by the LEA s superintendent or chief executive officer (CEO) The LEA, at a minimum, will implement no later than the school year: (a) A teacher evaluation system; (b) A principal evaluation system; and, (c) A superintendent evaluation; The LEA is committed to preparing all students for college or career, as demonstrated by: (a) -Being located in a State that has adopted college- and career-ready standards; or (b) Measuring all student progress and performance against college- and career ready graduation requirements. The LEA has a robust data system that has, at a minimum: (a) An individual teacher identifier with a teacher-student match; and (b) The capability to provide timely data back to educators and their supervisors on student growth; The LEA has the capability to receive or match student-level preschool-through-12th grade and higher education data; and The LEA ensures that any disclosure of or access to personally identifiable information in students education records complies with the Families Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Required signatures for the LEA or lead LEA in a consortium are those of the superintendent or CEO, local school board president, and local teacher union or association president (where applicable). Award Information: The Department anticipates awarding approximately $120 million to LEAs through a FY 2013 Race to the Top District competition. The maximum grant award will depend on the number of participating students who would be served under the grant. An applicant s budget request for all years of its project must fall within the applicable budget range shown in the table below. An application will not be considered that requests a budget outside the applicable range of awards. An applicant s budget must not be greater than or less than the applicable range of awards, and must be appropriate for and consistent with the plan it proposes in its application. For 2,000-5,000 or Fewer than 2,000 participating students, provided those students are served by a consortium of at least 10 LEAs and at least 75 percent of the students served by each LEA are participating students; the award range is $4-10 million. For 5,001-10,000 participating students, the award range is $10-20 million. For 10,001-20,000 participating students, the award range is $20-25 million. For 20,001+ participating students, the award range is $25-30 million. Deadline Description: The deadline to submit a letter of intent (optional) was due August 23, The deadline for applications was October 3, Similar deadlines are anticipated annually. History of Funding: Page 18 of 58

19 In the FY 2012 competition, the Department awarded approximately $383 million to 16 Race to the Top District grantees representing 55 local educational agencies (LEAs), with grants ranging from $10 to $40 million. Previous district awards can be found at; Additional Information: In general, FY 2013 Race to the Top District grant funds must be used to implement the applicant s approved FY 2013 Race to the Top District plan, including the applicant s approved budget; the budget must be consistent with the Department s administrative regulations as well as OMB s cost principle circulars, such as A-87. The ARRA places several restrictions on the use of FY 2013 Race to the Top District grant funds, as described below. With these exceptions, applicants have considerable flexibility in designing their plans and, therefore, have considerable discretion in determining how grant funds will be used, consistent with their approved plan, if they are awarded a grant. As noted above, the ARRA places several restrictions on uses of Race to the Top grant funds as follows: Section of the ARRA prohibits Race to the Top funds from being used for: Payment of maintenance costs; Stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public; Purchase or upgrade of vehicles; Improvement of stand-alone facilities whose purpose is not the education of children, including central office administration or operations or logistical support facilities; or School modernization, renovation, or repair that is inconsistent with State law; Section of the ARRA prohibits Race to the Top funds from being used to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools, unless the funds are used to provide special education and related services to children with disabilities as authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); and Section 1604 of the ARRA prohibits Race to the Top funds from being used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool. Contact: Meredith Farace 400 Maryland Avenue, SW. - U.S. Department of Education Rm. 7e280 Washington, DC Phone: (202) racetothetop.district@ed.gov Visit Website: Misc: and, *Consult the program guidance by following the links provided at the above URLs. Additional relevant POCs are provided in the program guidance. Page 19 of 58

20 Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST) CFDA Number(s): Authority: National Science Foundation (NSF), Directorate For Education and Human Resources (EHR) Summary: The ITEST program through research and model-building activities seeks to build understandings of best practice factors, contexts and processes contributing to K-12 students' motivation and participation in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) core domains along with other STEM cognate domains (e.g., information and communications technology (ICT), computing, computer sciences, data analytics, among others) that inform education programs and workforce domains. The ITEST program funds foundational and applied research projects addressing the development, implementation, and dissemination of innovative strategies, tools, and models for engaging students to be aware of STEM and cognate careers, and to pursue formal school-based and informal out-of-school educational experiences to prepare for such careers. ITEST supports projects that: increase students' awareness of STEM and cognate careers; motivate students to pursue the appropriate education pathways for STEM and cognate careers; and/or provide students with technology-rich experiences that develop disciplinary-based knowledge and practices, and non-cognitive skills (e.g., critical thinking and communication skills) needed for entering STEM workforce sectors. ITEST projects may adopt an interdisciplinary focus on one or more STEM domains or focus on sub discipline(s) within a domain. ITEST projects must involve students, and may also include teachers. ITEST is especially interested in broadening participation of student groups from traditionally underrepresented in STEM and cognate intensive education and workforce domains. Strongly encouraged are projects that actively engage business and industry to better ensure K-12 experiences are likely to foster the skill-sets of emerging STEM and cognate careers. ITEST supports two types of foundational and applied research projects: Strategies: projects that address the creation and implementation of innovative technology-related interventions SPrEaD (Successful Project Expansion and Dissemination): projects that support the wider and broader dissemination and examination of innovative interventions. Page 20 of 58

21 ITEST supports projects that enhance students' interest in and capabilities to successfully pursue STEM and STEM cognate careers. A number of DRL programs also address students STEM learning in K-12 formal and informal settings but with difference emphases. The programs include: the Discovery Research K-12 (DR K- 12) program, the Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) program, and the EHR Core Research (ECR) program. The DR-K12 focuses on researching the development and implementation of innovative resources, models, and tools for K-12 students and teachers, primarily in formal elementary, middle, and high school settings. The AISL focus is on understanding design and engagement in out-of-school STEM learning and learning environments across all ages in the life span; including cross venue youth programs in grades K-12. The ECR emphases are on foundational research to advance our understandings of and methodologies for studying STEM learning, STEM learning environments, broadening participation in STEM, and/or STEM workforce development. The research and development goals of the ITEST program are consistent with EHR's commitment to building and expanding research foundations in STEM learning and learning environments, workforce development and broadening participation in STEM. ITEST projects explore and test strategies and tools for fostering K-12 students' motivations, interests and capacities in STEM learning. ITEST is especially interested in broadening participation of student groups from traditionally underrepresented in STEM and cognate intensive education and workforce domains. Underrepresented groups may include, but are not limited to, women, underrepresented minorities (African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islanders) and persons with disabilities. ITEST projects may provide students with authentic, contextual experiences from in- and/or outof-school educational settings/programs. Projects may also involve partnerships with higher education, and business and industry to enhance the development of authentic experiences that serve to build student interest in STEM. Successful ITEST projects will engage in foundational or model-based design applied research that seeks to understand conditions and contexts that improve K-12 students' STEM learning pathways and STEM-focused career preparations and mentorships. The ITEST program is particularly interested in projects that examine the effectiveness of engaging adult volunteers with relevant disciplinary expertise from academia or industry to mentor and engage students in school, after school or out-of-school. Typically, proposals with a primary focus on workforce development for youth and on school to work transitions should be submitted to ITEST. Also encouraged are proposals that engage students in the use of cutting-edge technological tools, in computer sciences, or in providing students with work/problem based opportunities for innovative use of technology. Eligibility: All U.S. organizations with an educational mission are eligible for ITEST. All ITEST projects must demonstrate evidence of partnerships and collaboration in the formulation, implementation, and/or interpretation and dissemination of the project. Eligibility for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3) is limited to institutions of higher education (including two- and four-year colleges) located and accredited in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Award Information: Approximately Strategies awards with durations up to three years and total budgets up to $1,200,000 each will be made; and approximately 5-10 SPrEaD awards with durations of three to five years and total budgets up to $2,000,000 each will be made. Pending availability of funds, NSF anticipates having approximately $50,000,000 available for the two fiscal year period FY for support of the ITEST portfolio. Approximately $25,000,000 will be available for the FY 2014 Page 21 of 58

22 competition and approximately $25,000,000 will be available for the FY 2015 competition. Cost sharing is not required. Deadline Description: The deadlines to submit proposals are February 11, 2014, and November 6, History of Funding: Abstracts of recent ITEST awards are available at ogorganization=drl&booleanelement=true&booleanref=true&from=fund. Additional Information: Proposals to the ITEST program may request support for projects that: Develop, implement, and study a curricular or instructional strategy or model to understand how to improve student interest in and/or preparation for STEM and/or STEM cognate careers based on a well-specified theory of action appropriate to a well-defined end-user; Test existing measures or create valid and reliable new performance -based measures to evaluate the implementation and impact of an intervention strategy on how to prepare students for the existing or future STEM workforce. The focus may be on student assessments or assessing growth in teachers' knowledge of STEM and/or STEM cognate career opportunities. Conduct design-based pilot studies of fully or partially developed interventions to examine the attainment of intended outcomes such as knowledge about approaches, models, and interventions involving children, mentors and teachers that are most likely to increase the nation's capacity and innovation in the STEM and/ STEM cognate workforce of the future. Contact: Julia V. Clark National Science Foundation - Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, NV Phone: (703) jclark@nsf.gov Visit Website: Misc: *Consult the program guidance by following the links provided at the above URLs. Additional relevant POCs are provided in the program guidance. Page 22 of 58