Notes on the I3 Development Pre-Applications Received Sumary Document (MS Word)

Notes on the i3 Development Full Applications Received Summary Document

The information in this summary is based primarily on the supplemental Applicant Information Sheets submitted by applicants to the i3 grant program; because not all applicants submitted an Applicant Information Sheet, the summary that follows does not necessarily include all applications in all summary data.
Inclusion of an application in the summary data that follows does not ensure that the application will be considered eligible for an award, or that the application will be funded by the Department of Education.
Inclusion of an application in this summary information is not an endorsement of an organization, idea, program, or product, and the Department does not validate or guarantee the accuracy of this information. The data are provided in this summary solely for the convenience of the public.

August 2013 Office of Innovation and Improvement Page 1 of 1

Data Type / Summary Table / Summary Graphic
Applicant Type / Applicant Type / Count / Percent
LEA / 30 / 21.13%
Non-profit w/consortium of schools / 65 / 45.77%
Non-profit w/LEA / 47 / 33.10%
Grand Total / 142 / 100%
/ This pie chart depics the information presented on the chart to the left 33 of applicants are Local Educational Agencies 21 of applicants are Nonprofit with a consortium of schools 46 of applicans are a Nonprofit with Local Educational Agencies

This pie chart depics the information presented on the chart to the left 33 of applicants are Local Educational Agencies 21 of applicants are Nonprofit with a consortium of schools 46 of applicans are a Nonprofit with Local Educational Agencies

Absolute Priority / Absolute Priority / Count / Percent
AP1: Teacher and Principal Effectiveness / 22 / 15.49%
AP2: Low Performing Schools / 28 / 19.72%
AP3: Improving STEM Education / 28 / 19.72%
AP4: Students with Disabilities / 10 / 7.04%
AP5: English Learners / 12 / 8.45%
AP6: Parent and Family Engagement / 24 / 16.90%
AP7: Effective Use of Technology / 18 / 12.68%
Grand Total / 142 / 100%
/

This pie chart depics the information presented on the chart to the left 22 applicants applied under AP1 equating to 15 49 28 applicants applied under AP2 equating to 19 72 28 applicants applied under AP3 equating to 19 72 10 applicants applied under AP4 equating to 7 04 12 applicants applied under AP5 equating to 8 45 24 applicants applied under AP6 equating to 16 90 18 applicants applied under AP7 equating to 12 68 The grand total number of applicants is 142 equating to 100

Absolute Priority 8:
Serving Rural Communities[1] / Additional Absolute Priority / Count / Percent
AP1: Teacher and Principal Effectiveness / 6 / 28.57%
AP2: Low Performing Schools / 1 / 4.76%
AP3: Improving STEM Education / 7 / 33.33%
AP4: Students with Disabilities / 0 / 0%
AP5: English Learners / 0 / 0%
AP6: Parent and Family Engagement / 3 / 14.29%
AP7: Effective Use of Technology / 4 / 19.05%
Total Applicants Responding to AP8:21 / The pie chart depicts the information presented on the left in the chart The total number of applicants that have applied under AP8 is 21 The additional absolute priority that was identified is AP1 6 or 29 AP2 1 or 5 AP3 7 or 33 AP4 0 or 0 AP5 0 or 0 AP6 3 or 14 AP7 4 or 19

The pie chart depicts the information presented on the left in the chart The total number of applicants that have applied under AP8 is 21 The additional absolute priority that was identified is AP1 6 or 29 AP2 1 or 5 AP3 7 or 33 AP4 0 or 0 AP5 0 or 0 AP6 3 or 14 AP7 4 or 19

August 2013 Office of Innovation and Improvement Page 1 of 10

Data Type / Summary Table / Summary Graphic
Pre-Applicant Type / Applicant Type / Count / Percent
Highly Rated Pre-Applicant / 109 / 76.76%
Other Pre-Applicant / 33 / 23.24%
Grand Total / 142 / 100%
/ This information depicts the chart presented on the left 23 or 33 applicants were highly rated applicants 77 or 109 applicants were other pre applicants

This information depicts the chart presented on the left 23 or 33 applicants were highly rated applicants 77 or 109 applicants were other pre applicants

ID / Lead Applicant / City / State
1 / Teachers College, Columbia University / New York / NY
2 / Classroom, Inc. / New York / NY
3 / San Diego County Superintendent of Schools / San Diego / CA
4 / Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District / Pharr / TX
5 / ASSET, Inc. / Pittsburgh / PA
6 / The Trustees of Indiana University / Bloomington / IN
7 / Kanu o ka Aina Learning Ohana / Kamuela / HI
8 / Waterford Institute / Sandy / UT
9 / Asia Society / New York / NY
10 / Liberty Science Center, Inc. / Jersey City / NJ
11 / Center for Applied Linguistics / Washington / DC
12 / Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) / Denver / CO
13 / Northeast Washington Education Council / Spokane / WA
14 / West Allis-West Milwaukee School District / West Allis / WI
15 / California Emerging Technology Fund / San Francisco / CA
16 / University of Hawaii / Honolulu / HI
17 / EPIC-Every Person Influences Children, Inc. / Buffalo / NY
18 / College Track / Oakland / CA
19 / West Allis-West Milwaukee School District / West Allis / WI
20 / West Morris Regional High School District / Chester / NJ
21 / Carroll County Schools / Carrollton / GA
22 / Virginia Commonwealth University / Richmond / VA
23 / CAST, Inc. / Wakefield / MA
24 / National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform / Savoy / IL
25 / Teaching & Learning Collaborative / Worthington / OH
26 / The Research Foundation for the SUNY,University at Albany / Albany / NY
27 / Hugo W. Moser Research Institute at Kennedy Krieger, Inc. / Baltimore / MD
28 / The School District of Palm Beach County, Florida / West Palm Beach / FL
29 / Georgia State University Research Foundation, Inc. / Atlanta / GA
ID / Lead Applicant / City / State
30 / Black Hills Special Services Cooperative / Sturgis / SD
31 / The New Teacher Project, Inc. / Brooklyn / NY
32 / The School District of Philadelphia / Philadelphia / PA
33 / Catholic Social Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia / Philadelphia / PA
34 / Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation / Nespelem / WA
35 / San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools / San Bernardino / CA
36 / Broward Children's Center, Inc. / Pompano Beach / FL
37 / Challenger Center for Space Science Education / Washington / DC
38 / The University Corporation / Northridge / CA
39 / Washoe County School District / Reno / NV
40 / WestEd / San Francisco / CA
41 / The PRINCIPAL'S Exchange Foundation / Whittier / CA
42 / Jefferson City Public Schools / Jefferson City / MO
43 / Successful Practices Network, Inc. / Rexford / NY
44 / Seneca Family of Agencies / San Leandro / CA
45 / Wellpinit School District #49 / Wellpinit / WA
46 / Traverse City Area Public Schools / Traverse City / MI
47 / Northern Kentucky Cooperative for Educational Services / Cold Spring / KY
48 / United Way of Miami-Dade Inc. / Miami / FL
49 / Fort Wayne Community Schools / Fort Wayne / IN
50 / Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools / Winston-Salem / NC
51 / Communities In Schools / Arlington / VA
52 / Education Service Center Region XIII / Austin / TX
53 / Teaching Channel, The / San Francisco / CA
54 / University Public Schools, Inc. / Tempe / AZ
55 / Tincan / Spokane / WA
56 / The Regents of the University of California, Santa Cruz / Santa Cruz / CA
57 / Citizen Schools, Inc. / Boston / MA
58 / Grow You Own Illinois / Chicago / IL
59 / TransAccess / San Jose / CA
ID / Lead Applicant / City / State
60 / Koniag Education Foundation / Anchorage / AK
61 / The Renaissance Education Group, Inc. / Durham / NC
62 / The Renaissance Education Group, Inc. / Durham / NC
63 / Cabarrus County Schools / Concord / NC
64 / Western Michigan University / Kalamazoo / MI
65 / Winthrop University / Rock Hill / SC
66 / Big Brothers Big Sisters of America / Philadelphia / PA
67 / Education Development Center, Inc. / Waltham / MA
68 / People for People Charter School / Philadelphia / PA
69 / Johns Hopkins University / Baltimore / MD
70 / Camden County Schools / Kingsland / GA
71 / Georgia State University Research Foundation, Inc. / Atlanta / GA
72 / Spurwink Services, Inc. / Portland / ME
73 / The Providence Plan / Providence / RI
74 / Indiana University / Indianapolis / IN
75 / The Children's Aid Society / New York / NY
76 / Lubbock-Cooper Independent School District / Lubbock / TX
77 / Shore Educational Collaborative / Chelsea / AS
78 / Illinois State University / Normal / IL
79 / New York City Department of Education / Brooklyn / NY
80 / Sonoma State University / Rohnert Park / CA
81 / The Pennsylvania State University / University Park / PA
82 / Arkansas School for Mathematics, Sciences and the Arts / Hot Springs / AR
83 / National Math + Science Initiative / Dallas / TX
84 / Regional Education Service Agency VII / Clarksburg / WV
85 / New York Junior Tennis League, Inc. / Woodside / NY
86 / Santee School District / Santee / CA
87 / The University of Texas at San Antonio / San Antonio / TX
88 / Computers for Youth Foundation, Inc. / New York / NY
89 / New Visions for Public Schools, Inc. / New York / NY
ID / Lead Applicant / City / State
90 / Teach Plus, Inc. / Boston / MA
91 / Woonsocket Education Department / Woonsocket / RI
92 / United Way of Greater Atlanta / Atlanta / GA
93 / ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career / Berkeley / CA
94 / Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles / Los Angeles / CA
95 / Legal Action of Wisconsin / Milwaukee / WI
96 / School District of Philadelphia / Philadelphia / PA
97 / NYC Leadership Academy, Inc. / Long Island City / NY
98 / Green River Regional Educational Cooperative / Bowling Green / KY
99 / The University of Chicago / Chicago / IL
100 / School District of Philadelphia / Philadelphia / PA
101 / Collaborative for Educational Services / Northampton / MA
102 / School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver / Denver / CO
103 / CASA de Maryland, Inc. / Langley Park / MD
104 / Pittsburg State University / Pittsburg / KS
105 / Rochester City School District / Rochester / NY
106 / Maricopa County Education Service Agency / Phoenix / AZ
107 / Southeast Kansas Education Service Center / Girard / KS
108 / University of Northern Iowa / Cedar Falls / IA
109 / Beaumont Independent School District / Beaumont / TX
110 / Purdue University / West Lafayette / IN
111 / Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / Troy / NY
112 / University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc. / Lawrence / KS
113 / Green Dot Public Schools / Los Angeles / CA
114 / San Jose Unified School District / San Jose / CA
115 / South Bay Community Services / Chula Vista / CA
116 / Fayette County Public Schools / Lexington / KY
117 / Boston Public Schools / Boston / MA
118 / Adams-Friendship Area School District / Frienship / WI
119 / Office of the State Superintendent of Education / Washington / DC
ID / Lead Applicant / City / State
120 / Special School District No. 1 / Minneapolis / MN
121 / Jacksonville State University / Jacksonville / AL
122 / University of Nebraska Medical Center / Omaha / NE
123 / New Visions for Public Schools, Inc. / New York / NY
124 / Chaminade University of Honolulu / Honolulu / HI
125 / Bridgeport City School District / Bridgeport / CT
126 / Parents Advocating Challenging Education / St. Louis / MO
127 / Learning Bridge of the Sierra / Soda Springs / CA
128 / Mastery Charter Schools / Philadelphia / PA
129 / Teaching Channel, The / San Francisco / CA
130 / The George Washington University / Washington / DC
131 / Vallejo City Unified School District / Vallejo / CA
132 / The George Washington University / Washington / DC
133 / Worcester Polytechnic Institute / Worcester / MA
134 / Eastern Michigan University / Ypsilanti / MI
135 / School Board of Miami-Dade County, FL / Miami / FL
136 / rPlace Education Foundation / Charlotte / NC
137 / University of Texas at Brownsville / Brownsville / TX
138 / Texas Tech University / Lubbock / TX
139 / University of Massachusetts Boston / Boston / MA
140 / Bay Area Community Resources / San Rafael / CA
141 / Logan Square Neighborhood Association / Chicago / IL
142 / Turnaround for Children / New York / NY

August 2013 Office of Innovation and Improvement Page 1 of 10

[1] Applicants applying under Absolute Priority 8 must address one of the other seven absolute priorities for the FY 2013 i3 Development competitionwhile serving students enrolled in rural LEAs. The summary table and graphic indicate the number of applicants that applied under Absolute Priority 8, as well as which additional Absolute Priorities they chose.