70?

3 Replies to “70?”

1. By the numbers that’s what we’ve been expecting despite the department’s claims to the contrary. They’d need $2.2 billion to fund the number of awards they’ve been projecting–and that’s at the average expected award amounts and not the maximum award level. The validation awards alone would require $1.7 billion.

   Based on the anticipated average award size, they should have projected 5 scale-up, 10 validation, and 100 development. Instead, they projected 5 scale-up, 100 validation, and 100 development, and they refused to admit in the pre-application workshops that the projections were not possible given the amount of funding available.

2. I’m more concerned with the use of the words, “likely i3 winners.” They claimed that there would be unprecedented levels of transparency. The most recent post to the i3 website says they will be publishing details about each proposed project. None of that is available yet and Secretary Duncan is already talking about likely winners?!

3. I think that’s great news. My anecdotal impression is that i3 became a required funding application stop for any and all education groups. I’ve been hearing about applications from those who are genuinely pushing change, excellence and the envelope but also those who are tired, old, defending the way we’ve always done it. I’d much rather see our $$ going for a few big ideas with huge promise than to a hodge podge of good ideas, lots of stuff with marginal potential and the usual suspects. I applaud the administration for trying to push us beyond the “Casablanca syndrome”.