Several people have asked about some of the current terminology that has been discussed with the most recent federal initiatives. While there has been much discussion here and elsewhere about
Race to the Top (RTTT), there has been less discussion about what has been called
the i3 grants. In the world of Eduspeak, the
i3 stands for
Investing
in
Innovation Fund.
There are essentially 3 different kinds of
i3 grants. You must specifically apply the one you are interested in. The basic idea behind
i3 is that each of these potential grants must be supported by evidence and research rather than anecdotal observations. As such universities (or similar institutions) are key partners in most of these
i3 efforts. The 3 types of
i3 grants are:
- Scale-up – These are large scale grants ($50 million) that are targeted to states and other institutions or agencies that can affect thousands of students.
- Validation – These are middle grants ($30 million) that are targeted on projects that will validate with further evidence existing published research. The barrier is rather high regarding the research base in this case.
- Development – This final category is a bit more exploratory in nature and there are small awards ($5 million) for projects that have promise and some basis of prior research evidence – but insufficient research to be conclusive.
While RTTT had primarily a
state focus,
i3 focuses on local
school districts (or consortiums of such). We have applied for both
validation and
development grants -- or more accurately we are partners with others in those efforts. While this all appears to be interesting and have some promise, I am reminded that RTTT (Round 1) also had a lot of promise and states generally responded in an aggressive, competitive manner.
However, the delivery on RTTT seemed to be quite another thing with 15 out of 40 being
shortlisted and ultimately 2 states being funded. Those two states (Delaware and Tennessee) are both small and limited amounts of the promised prize were distributed. The other 38 states have been left with lots of policy changes that happened rapidly with limited development time and agreement of parties
We will see what happens with the many, many
i3 grant applications that are being submitted.
Thank you RUSD for not signing up for RTTT. This was one of the wisest moves. We have enough heartache and this has saved us from more of it.
ReplyDeletePosted this on the RCTA blog but since we know they censor their blog, I wanted to post it here too:
ReplyDelete"Reduce all stipends by 50% for one year (2010-11)"
Why was this negotiated? This only affects a percentage of staff and they usually do extra jobs that benefit the schools (Band Directors, Activities Directors, Class Advisers, Coaches, Department Heads, Yearbook Advisers, and so on). For some of them, it will be like they are taking another 2-6 additional "furlough days" from their pay. It would have been wiser for everyone to take one more furlough day and leave the stipends alone. Can someone please explain why this was sneaked in and never discussed?
Maybe everyone that gets a stipend should do half the work now. I for one am extremely appreciative of everything that these staff members do for our kids because many of them do jobs after school that I know a lot of other staff members would not do.
Thank you for your comment about stipens. 50% reduction is a slap in the face for the extra hours and dedication that many staff members put into the extra work they take on.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I found a great non-profit that has been helping disadvantaged school districts and has had many success stories improving student achievement in Math, SAT and ACT including Collier County, FL and St. Landry Parish, LA. Their site is www.cyberlearning.org. CyberLearning also offers Technology courses that many schools could find useful.
ReplyDelete