Tag Archives: News Media

Spanish Language Fact Sheet — Carrera a la Cima

Financiamiento mediante la Ley Estadounidense de Recuperación y Reinversión (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act):
$4.35 mil millones

Los Estados, el Distrito de Columbia y Puerto Rico.

Tipo de subvención:
Por concurso

Para mayores informes:


El Fondo Carrera a la Cima de $4.35 mil millones constituye la mayor inversión federal por concurso de la historia de la reforma educativa. Premiará a los estados por sus logros en el pasado y creará incentivos para mejoras en el futuro, y retará a los estados a crear estrategias integrales para abordar los cuatro aspectos centrales de la reforma que impulsarán mejoras en las escuelas:

  • Adopción de la normativa y las evaluaciones internacionales que preparan a los estudiantes para triunfar en la universidad y el ámbito laboral;
  • Captación, actualización, retención y premiación de maestros y directores efectivos, especialmente, donde se necesitan más;
  • Elaboración de sistemas de datos que miden la eficacia de los estudiantes e indican a los maestros y directores cómo pueden mejorar la instrucción; y
  • Reversión de la situación de las escuelas de rendimiento más bajo.

Las adjudicaciones en la Carrera a la Cima se destinarán a los Estados que lideran con planes ambiciosos y, al mismo tiempo alcanzables, para implantar una reforma educativa coherente, contundente y completa en estos aspectos. Estos Estados ayudarán a innovar con reformas efectivas y darán el ejemplo para los Estados y los distritos escolares locales de todo el país.

Calendario de solicitudes y adjudicaciones:

El Departamento realizará dos vueltas del concurso. El plazo para las solicitudes de la primera vuelta vencerá el 19 de enero de 2010. Los revisores evaluarán las solicitudes y el Departamento dará a conocer los adjudicatarios de la primera vuelta de financiamiento para abril de 2010. El plazo para las solicitudes de la segunda vuelta vencerá el 1 de junio de 2010, y se darán a conocer todos los adjudicatarios para septiembre de 2010. Los Estados que presentan solicitud para la primera vuelta pero que no resultan adjudicatarios podrán volver a presentar solicitud en la segunda vuelta (junto con los Estados que presentan solicitud por primera vez en la segunda vuelta). Los adjudicatarios de la primera vuelta reciben subvenciones completas por lo cual no podrán solicitar financiamiento adicional en la segunda vuelta.

El Departamento planea realizar otro concurso de $350 millones en la Carrera a la Cima que convocará posteriormente.

Reports & Resources – OESE


Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015, and represents good news for our nation’s schools. This bipartisan measure reauthorizes the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the nation’s national education law and longstanding commitment to equal opportunity for all students.


NewTechnical Assistance

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) offers technical assistance to address grantee needs across multiple ESEA programs. OESE offices and technical assistance partners provide one-on-one individualized support for States to problem solve specific State needs; peer-to-peer interactions that provide opportunities for collaboration with peer States, communities of practice, and interstate working groups around relevant issues and challenges; and build awareness of information and resources in response to needs identified in the field through ongoing guidance and technical support to all States. This technical assistance page provides information for State grantees and links to useful guidance, webinars, tools and resources, and technical assistance partners to support implementation of ESEA programs.

Click Here

    for more information concerning our new Technical Assistance Resource Page.


ESEA Program Activities/Updates/Plans


  • Equitable Services Implementation Plan Webpage: ESIP is the U. S. Department of Education’s plan to assist State and local educational agencies (SEAs and LEAs) to improve the implementation of the equitable services requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for eligible students enrolled in nonprofit private elementary and secondary schools and, as applicable, their teachers and parents.


Annual Reports to Congress

Publications and Links


National Indian Education Study 2015: Setting the Context

The “National Indian Education Study 2015: Setting the Context” document was written by the National Indian Education Study Technical Review Panel (NIES TRP). This document does not necessarily reflect the views of the National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, or the U.S. Department of Education. The NIES TRP provided substantial input on the NIES report. The National Center for Education Statistics, located within the Institute of Education Sciences, is responsible solely for the actual report, available via https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/studies/pdf/2019048.pdf.

Dear Colleague Letter on College Scorecard

A guide to Using the College Scorecard

BRIEF: Forging a New Framework for Professional Development

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development Publications

Comprehensive School Reform Publications web page

Office of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS) Resources and Factsheets web page

Teaching Our Youngest: A Guide for Preschool Teachers & Child Care & Family Providers

EDPubs On-line Ordering System

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): Find statistical publications, fast facts, survey and program areas, the Encyclopedia of ED Stats, and education related resources.


Labs, Centers, and Clearinghouses


The National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent or At Risk (NDTAC)

Comprehensive Assistance Centers established to help low-performing schools and districts close achievement gaps

Equity Assistance Centers provide assistance in the areas of race, gender, and national origin equity to public school districts

National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs

Regional Educational Laboratories: are educational research and development organizations supported by contracts with the U.S. Department of Education.

OSHS Technical Assistance Centers


Biography of Lisa Ramirez – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education


You are here: OESE Home > Programs/Initiatives > OME


Dr. Lisa R. Ramírez is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education. In this role, she oversees a broad range of management, policy, and program functions.

Prior to her current appointment, Dr. Ramírez served as the Director of the Office of Migrant Education and the Director for the Office of School Support and Rural Programs in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). Dr. Ramírez joined the U.S. Department of Education in 2006, when she was appointed Group Leader for the discretionary grants team, which plans and coordinates the High School Equivalency Program (HEP), College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP), and the then active Migrant Education Even Start (MEES) program. After only one and a half years in her new role, she was promoted to Director of the Office of Migrant Education, where she led the planning and coordination of all aspects of the various programs, including grant and contract administration, policy, evaluation, and special initiatives. In 2015, she added the Office of School Support and Rural Programs to her portfolio. Even with dwindling resources including a reduction in staff, Dr. Ramírez has continued to inspire the staff in such a way that they have developed their own leadership skills and have become motivated to produce consistently higher and more effective results, both inside the office and with the field of grantees.

The daughter of migrant workers and a former migrant worker herself, Dr. Ramírez left the fields to serve in the United States Army Reserves. She financed portions of her college education through the GI Bill and began her career as an educator in 1992, first as a middle and high school teacher in English and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) in Texas, then serving as Assistant Principal and Principal. In 2004, Dr. Ramírez took on the challenge of opening the Lubbock Independent School District’s first charter campus, the Ramírez Charter School. Dr. Lisa R. Ramírez brings a unique combination of personal and professional experiences to help improve the academic success of students across the country. A dynamic, change agent at heart, Dr. Ramírez has had a powerful impact on the various staffs and offices where she has worked. Correspondingly, Dr. Ramirez is recognized within the Department for her unique positive spirit, notable intelligence and outstanding leadership.

Born in Chicago, but a Texan at heart, Dr. Ramírez received her B.A., M.Ed., and Ed.D. degrees from Texas Tech University, in Lubbock, Texas. A life-long learner, she is an alumna of the Executive Leadership program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and the National Hispana Leadership Institute. She is also a Pahara-Aspen Institute Fellow. Dr. Ramírez enjoys running, hiking, writing and the study of film/world cinema. Dr. Ramírez currently lives with her husband, two children and two family dogs in Alexandria, Virginia.

Fact Sheet

FY 2009 funding:
$65 million

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:
$250 million


Type of Grant:


The program provides grants to states to design, develop, and implement
statewide P-20 longitudinal data systems to capture, analyze, and use
student data from preschool to high school, college, and the workforce.

Program Requirements:

Since it started in fiscal year 2005, the program has awarded grants worth
$265 million to 41 states and the District of Columbia. The Recovery
Act competition requires that the data systems have the capacity to link
preschool, K-12, and postsecondary education as well as workforce
data. To receive State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, a state must provide an
assurance that it will establish a longitudinal data system that includes
the 12 elements described in the America COMPETES Act, and any data
system developed with Statewide longitudinal data system funds must
include at least these 12 elements. The elements are:

  1. An unique identifier for every student that does not permit a student
    to be individually identified (except as permitted by federal and state

  2. The school enrollment history, demographic characteristics, and
    program participation record of every student;

  3. Information on when a student enrolls, transfers, drops out, or
    graduates from a school;

  4. Students scores on tests required by the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act;

  5. Information on students who are not tested, by grade and subject;
  6. Students scores on tests measuring whether they’re ready for college;
  7. A way to identify teachers and to match teachers to their students;
  8. Information from students’ transcripts, specifically courses taken and
    grades earned;

  9. Data on students’ success in college, including whether they enrolled
    in remedial courses;

  10. Data on whether K-12 students are prepared to succeed in college;
  11. A system of auditing data for quality, validity, and reliability; and
  12. The ability to share data from preschool through postsecondary
    education data systems.

    With such comprehensive data systems, states will be able to monitor
    their reforms and make specific changes to advance them. These
    data systems will capture data on students from one grade to the next,
    measuring whether they are on track to graduate and telling K-12 schools
    whether they are preparing their students to succeed in college and
    the workforce. The data systems also can help identify teachers who
    are succeeding so states can reward them, and find teachers who are
    struggling and help them improve.

    A request for applications is being published in the Federal Register and
    will be available on

Fact Sheet

FY 2009 Funding:
$269 million

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:
$650 million

States, which make subgrants
to school districts

Type of Grant:
Formula to States, and
formula or competitive
subgrants to school districts


The primary goal of the Ed Tech Grants program is to improve student
academic achievement through the use of technology in schools. It is
also designed to help ensure that every student is technologically literate
by the end of eighth grade and to encourage the effective integration of
technology with teacher training and curriculum development.

The ARRA and regular FY 2009 grants provide an unprecedented
opportunity for states, districts, and schools to use innovative strategies to
enhance instruction, facilitate teaching and learning, and improve student
achievement. They also will enable districts to acquire new and emerging
technologies, create new, state-of-the- art learning environments, and
offer new training and more support for teachers so that students acquire
the technological skills they will need to compete in a global economy.

Current Program Operations:

Under the Ed Tech program, the U.S. Department of Education provides
grants to states following a formula. States may retain up to 5 percent of
their allocations for state-level activities, and must award at least one-half
of the remainder competitively to eligible districts. A state may elect to
award up to 100 percent of the subgrant funds on a competitive basis.

The Department strongly encourages States to award all of the funds
competitively. Larger, competitive grants potentially will have a greater
impact than smaller formula grants awarded across all of a state’s

School Improvement Grants: Examples of Successful Efforts

The Obama administration is providing $3.5 billion to support state and local efforts to reform their lowest-performing schools. In rules proposed on August 26, 2009, districts could use one of three models. A fourth option would be to close a low-performing school and enroll its students in high-performing schools in the district.

Here are examples of successful efforts using each of the three options.

Option 1: Turnarounds

Chicago Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL), Chicago, IL

Founded in 2001, AUSL is a nonprofit specializing in teacher preparation and school management. It works in partnership with Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to transform chronically underperforming public schools. Using unionized staff, AUSL’s model includes:

  • Hiring a new principal;
  • Keeping effective teachers but replacing many others;
  • Implementing a curriculum based on high expectations and organized around frequent assessments to help teachers track student progress and differentiate instruction; and
  • Building a culture of respect and intellectual curiosity.

AUSL opened its first turnaround school in 2006 at the Sherman School of Excellence. The transition took place in the summer, so the student body remained the same and students did not have to temporarily move to other schools. Since then, Sherman has produced steady gains in the student achievement. AUSL’s second turnaround school was the Harvard School of Excellence. Before AUSL’s turnaround in 2007, Harvard ranked in the bottom five out of more than 3,000 Illinois elementary schools. Harvard has produced steady gains in student achievement.

Contact: Dr. Donald Feinstein, Executive Director, AUSL, 3400 N. Austin Avenue, Chicago, IL 60634, 773-534-0129

Green Dot, Los Angeles, CA

Green Dot, which runs charter schools in Los Angeles, partnered with the L.A. Unified school district to turn around Locke High School. Locke was considered one of L.A.’s most troubled and chronically underperforming public high schools. Only 5 percent of its entering 9th graders would graduate and enroll in four-year colleges and universities. On September 11, 2007, the LAUSD school board voted to give Green Dot operational control of Locke High School. Green Dot is the first outside organization to operate a traditional public school in the district.

In 2008, Locke reopened as eight small college-prep academies known as the Locke Family of High Schools. Five of the schools are housed on the main campus, with three schools located on satellite campuses. Green Dot adopted a college-focused curriculum and provided extensive remediation for the large number of students who arrive at 9th grade working at below grade level.

As part of the turnaround, only 40 of the school’s 120 teachers remained in the school. Principals can be hired and fired at will, and principals have more control over the staffing in their schools as well. In the first year, Locke showed modest gains in test scores, but tested significantly more students (38 percent more than the previous year, indicating more students were staying in school throughout the year), reduced truancy and dropout rates, and improved the safety of the school setting. Additionally, nearly 20 percent more students graduated, and large percentages of those continued onto college, including many to four-year colleges.

Contact: Steve Barr, Founder and Chairman, 350 South Figueroa Street, Suite 213, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 621-0276

Option 2: Re-Start as Charter School or Under Education Management Organization

Mastery Schools, Philadelphia, PA

Mastery Charter Schools is a growing network of charter college preparatory, middle-high schools that serves 1,750 neighborhood students in Philadelphia. Mastery has focused on converting chronically low-performing schools to charter schools and then dramatically improving student performance. Mastery’s teachers are continually focused on improving student achievement. They align assessments with clear objectives and use assessment data to direct instruction. Mastery creates an achievement-focused school culture and fosters meaningful, personal relationships between students and adults. Teachers emphasize problem-solving and social-emotional skills. All students receive workplace skills training and participate in internships to ensure they develop the real-world skills required for college and the workforce. Mastery schools also have both an extended school year and an extended school day. Their program focuses on mastery (“attaining a grade of 76 percent or above”) of a well-defined and very narrow curriculum of basic academic skills (reading, writing, and math). It is driven by periodic benchmark assessments monitored for overall percentage improvements.

One example of a Mastery School is Pickett Middle School. At the previous Pickett Middle School, run on the same site, student suspensions were high and achievement was low. The building was in need of significant refurbishment. In the transition to a Mastery school, all staff and students who applied to stay were required to sign new contracts accepting Mastery’s approach and management systems to ensure effective instruction, learning, and school climate. Many staff chose to leave, but most students stayed. The first year improvement at Pickett was dramatic. Across seventh and eighth grade state testing, average reading improvement was 45 percent; average math improvement was 21 percent. Mastery’s highly structured/ managed approach also led to dramatic change in school culture. At Pickett and its two peer conversion schools, violence incidences have dropped 85 percent while student turnover dropped by nearly half.

Contact: Scott Gordon, CEO, 5700 Wayne Ave, Philadelphia, PA 19144, (215) 866-9000

Option 3: Transformation

Hamilton County, TN

Hamilton County, Tennessee, is widely recognized as a school reform success story. With $5 million from the Chattanooga-based Benwood Foundation and funding from several other local organizations, school, and community officials launched an intensive teacher-centered campaign to reform Chattanooga’s lowest-performing schools. The model, now known as the “Benwood Initiative,” dramatically improved student achievement. School district officials replaced most principals in the Benwood schools and required teachers to reapply for their jobs. Approximately one-third of teachers did not return to the Benwood schools. Community officials created financial incentives to attract new talent, including free graduate school tuition, mortgage loans, and performance bonuses. Benwood’s success has had at least as much to do with a second, equally important teacher-reform strategy: helping teachers improve the quality of their instruction.

A new analysis of “value-added” teacher effectiveness data conducted indicates that over a period of six years, existing teachers in the eight Benwood elementary schools improved steadily. Before the Benwood Initiative kicked off, they were far less effective than their peers elsewhere in the Hamilton County district. In terms of student achievement, students in Benwood schools achieved impressive gains; for example, Benwood 3rd graders scoring proficient or advanced on state reading tests rose by 27 percent from 2003-2007.

Contact: Dan Challener, President, Chattanooga Public Education Foundation, 100 East Tenth Street, Suite 500, Chattanooga, TN 37402, 423-265-9403

Funding Status


Appropriation: $0


Appropriation: $0


Appropriation: $1,473,795


Appropriation: $3,000,000


Appropriation: $3,000,000


Appropriation: $0


Appropriation: $0


Appropriation: $10,000,000

Number of awards: TBD

Note: Appropriations of Project SERV funds not used in previous years remain available for awards in subsequent years.


1. Who is eligible to apply for Project SERV funds?

Local educational agencies (LEAs) and institutions of higher education (IHEs) are eligible to apply for Project SERV if (1) their learning environment has been disrupted as a direct result of a violent or traumatic event (see answer to question 2 below for a discussion of “eligible event”), and (2) responding to the crisis poses an undue financial hardship. Charter Schools that are considered LEAs under State law may directly apply for funding for Project SERV. Consistent with State and local procurement procedures, LEAs and IHEs may provide services directly and enter into contracts with other providers for necessary services. LEAs and IHEs may not subgrant funds received through Project SERV.

2. What is an “eligible event”?

Many types of events have the potential to seriously disrupt the learning environment. Further, events that appear similar do not always affect the learning environment in the same way. These facts make it difficult to determine in advance all the types of events which would be eligible for services. Any traumatic or violent event, that disrupted teaching and learning, is eligible for services under Project SERV if the LEA or IHE is able to: (1) demonstrate the traumatic effect on the learning environment including how the event has disrupted teaching and learning; and (2) demonstrate that the needed services cannot be adequately provided with existing resources in a comprehensive and timely manner, and that the provision of services and assistance will result in an undue financial hardship on the LEA or IHE. Generally, eligible events are those events that occur outside of the normal routine of school operations. The following are some examples of potentially eligible events. Other serious events not listed here also may be eligible.

  • shootings or other serious violent incidents in schools, such as stabbings
  • suicides of students, faculty members and/or staff
  • hate crimes committed against students, faculty members and/or staff
  • homicide of students, faculty members, and/or staff off cam

3. What events are not eligible for funding?

Many types of events may have the potential to disrupt the learning environment, yet are not considered eligible for funding under Project SERV. For example, actions taken by school boards, administrators or other school officials as part of their normal educational administrational function are the kind of incidents that are not considered eligible for funding.

4. What activities are eligible for funding under Project SERV?

Project SERV will fund costs that are reasonable, necessary, and essential for services activities that are intended to restore a sense of safety and security, help the victims/students stabilize their lives, and assist LEAs and IHEs in managing the practical problems created by the traumatic event. Project SERV funds are available to supplement, not replace, resources provided for these purposes by other Federal, State, local and private agencies and organizations. Examples of allowable services and activities are:

  • Technical assistance on developing an appropriate recovery plan for addressing student needs and assessing the Federal, State, and local resources available to the LEA, IHE, and community to carry out this response.
  • Mental health assessments, referrals, and services related to the traumatic event (with the goal of restoring victims/survivors to their pre-incident levels of functioning)
  • Overtime for teachers, counselors, law enforcement and security officers, and other staff
  • Substitute teachers and other staff as necessary
  • Emergency transportation such as expenses incurred during evacuation
  • Transportation and other costs to operate school at an alternative site
  • Repairs of minor damage caused by the traumatic event (Extended Services Grants only)
  • Temporary security measures such as non-permanent metal detectors and additional security guards and security cameras

This list is not meant to be exhaustive. Applications to fund other services will be considered if the proposed activities are not among the list of services and activities that may not be funded (see response to FAQ Question 5); and are necessary to restore the learning environment.

5. What activities are not eligible for funding under Project SERV?

Project SERV funds may not be used for the following types of services and activities:

Any activity for which other resources, such as, insurance claims and reimbursements, capital improvement funds and disaster assistance for which payment will be received by another agency such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Office of Victims of Crime (OVC), or other Federal, State, local, or private agencies or organizations.

  • Construction
  • Repairs of minor damage caused by the violent or traumatic event [Immediate Services Grants only]
  • Permanent security measures such as stationary metal detectors or permanent security cameras
  • claims recoverable under insurance coverage, including Medicaid reimbursements for related services to students, staff, and their families
  • Payments of fines assessed upon the LEA or IHE, employees, and/or members of employees’ or students’ families
  • Payment of settlements assessed against the LEA or IHE, employees and/or members of employees’ or students’ families in civil court actions
  • Payment of legal fees or loss of wages due to court appearances incurred by the LEA or IHE, employees and/or members of employees’ or students’ families
  • Costs for hospitalization, treatment of physical injuries, rehabilitation, or prescription costs
  • Payment for public relations consultants or other media activities
  • Services of existing County/public/private non-profit mental health agency staff whose role is to respond to emergency mental health needs of children
  • Mental health services for persons other than students, faculty, other school personnel, and members of their immediate families
  • Universal mental health screenings
  • Emergency management services, such as development of emergency management plans, conducting vulnerability assessments, etc.

6. To whom may services be provided?

Services may be provided to students, teachers, and school staff, and to immediate family members of students, teachers, and staff. Services may be provided to individuals directly affected by a traumatic crisis or event, such as those who are personally victimized or injured by a crime or disaster; those who witness a violent event; or those whose family members are victimized, injured, or killed. Services may also be provided to those who are not directly injured or victimized but who are indirectly affected, for example, by attending or working in a school where a traumatic event or natural disaster has occurred.

NOTE: Counseling services for school staff may only be requested if those services are not covered by the insurance policy provided by the school district.

7. May LEAs or IHEs be eligible for funding if a crisis or incident happened off campus?

Yes, the determining factor in eligibility for funding is that the crisis disrupted the learning environment. Incidents that occur off-campus, such as accidents and shootings of students that take place in the community, and natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods, can have an impact on the learning environment, and therefore are potentially an “eligible event” under which an LEA or IHE may apply for funding.

8. Can project SERV funds be used to fund violence prevention programs such as after-school programs, mentoring programs, anger management, or skills building management?

Project SERV funds are to be used to restore the learning environment by addressing the disruptive effects of a traumatic crisis or event. Although an LEA may understandably wish to respond to such a crisis by initiating or strengthening prevention activities, Project SERV funds may not be used for such activities.

9. How are applications submitted?

To help expedite the review process, applications for Immediate Services and Extended Services grants should be sent via email to Hamed.Negron-Perez@ed.gov.

LEAs applying for funding must also ensure that the application is coordinated and shared with the State Education Agency.

10. Under what circumstances may the Department deny funding of an application?

All Project SERV grants are at the discretion of the Secretary and subject to the availability of funds. The Secretary may deny funding, even to a high scoring project, if the project is not consistent with the goals and purpose of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), or does not further national needs related to the SDFSCA. Examples of additional circumstances under which ED may deny a request for funding under Project SERV are: if the applicant fails to document the need for Federal funds; if the applicant is not an LEA or IHE; if the application is incomplete; if the purposes for which funding is being sought are inconsistent with the statutory authority for the use of these funds; if funding is unavailable; or if the proposed activities are unallowable under the non-regulatory guidance for the program.

11. What assurances must an LEA or IHE provide the Department?

There are several assurances that an LEA must submit as part of the application package, such as:

  • Non-Construction Programs Assurances (SF 424B)
  • Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF LLL).

Awards for 2018




Award Amount

Texas SEA TX








Freeman SD WA


Broward County PS FL


Two Eagle River School MT


Clark County SD NV


New Paltz Central SD MT


Santa Fe ISD TX


St. Mary’s County PS MD


West Liberty-Salem LSD OH


Marshall County SD KY


Corning Unified Elementary SD CA


Awards for 2017




Award Amount

Flint Community Schools Michigan


Anderson SD South Carolina


Washington West Supervisory Union SD Vermont


Washoe County SD Nevada


Anderson SD, 2nd Award South Carolina


St. Joseph SD Missouri


San Bernardino City Unified SD California