Parsing the i3 Projects with a Focus on Early Learning

It’s official: forty-nine projects have been awarded Investing in Innovation (i3) grants. Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education announced the highest-rated applicants and released reviewers scores and comments as well as the applicant’s narratives. Colleague Jenny Cohen has the breakdown of all the winners over on Ed Money Watch. Here, at Early Ed Watch, we will focus on the winners that included the early learning competitive priority. (In the coming weeks, we will provide more in-depth analysis of the highest-rated applicants that prioritized early learning.)

Of the 49 winners, 13 included early learning as a priority. Applicants that included early learning as a competitive priority were required to focus on improving school readiness; improving alignment, collaboration, and transitions between early learning programs and early elementary grades; and aligning standards with appropriate outcome measures.  

Three were scale-up proposals, three were validation, and seven were development. (There were only four scale-up winners in all, as these grants had the most rigorous research requirements.) Two proposals focused on effective teachers; one focused on improving data; three concentrated on standards and assessment; and seven proposed efforts to improve low performing schools. In all, these 13 proposals equate to 36 percent of the $650 million to be awarded, assuming that the highest-rated applicants are able to find matching grants that will make them eligible for the full amount they requested.

That’s $233 million dollars, which sounds like a lot of money for innovative programs for young children, but keep in mind that three of the anticipated grantees include the KIPP Foundation, Teach for America, and the Success for All Foundation, which have missions that are not focused solely on early learning. (Some KIPP schools, for example, include pre-kindergarten and elementary grades, but others are middle and high schools.)

To provide a more incisive look at how much money will be dedicated to improving education for young children (from birth to age 8), we will need to delve into applications and collect information on what fraction of the grant money will be used for those age ranges. (Stay tuned!)

Below is information on the 13 early-learning winners: 

You may notice that none of the proposals we highlighted in our post last month were among the highest-rated applicants. However, at least one of the projects above does have a pre-k – 3^rd focus around improving math instruction, and we know that Montgomery County Public Schools have a strong track record in aligning standards and teacher training from pre-k up through the early grades and beyond.  AppleTree Institute, a pre-k charter school in Washington, D.C., has also been lauded for solid data on children’s growth.

There may also be i3 winners that could make a difference in the early years but because of oversight or unknown reasons may not have filed their applications with an “early learning” competitive priority label.  Reading Recovery, for example, is a literacy program used in the early grades of elementary school, but in the Ed Department’s list, it does not carry the “early learning” label. Speaking of literacy, several winners in the full list of 49 winners did include a literacy focus, including two of the four scale up winners, Success for All and Reading Recovery. (For a smart take on the i3 grants, the literacy winners, and the significance of i3 for early childhood program’s, see Sara Mead’s analysis over at Ed Week.)

Also, keep in mind that just because these projects have been named as winners doesn’t guarantee that they’ll receive a federal grant. The winning applicants must secure a commitment for a 20 percent private sector match by September 8^th in order to receive funding. About 20 of the 49 applicants have already secured the match requirement;  others can connect with foundations that are interested in making matching grants.

What are your thoughts on the chosen applicants – or those that didn’t make the cut? Has the process been helpful in prompting new ideas and triggering better collaboration between non-profits and school districts? We would love to hear your take on i3 and how it might be improved to truly make a difference in raising the quality of early learning programs around the country.