............................................................................ STATE | INVOLVEMENT OF | APPLICATIONS | FUNDING | | DISTRICTS | | | ...........|.......................|................|.......................| Illinois | 315 of 915 districts | 160 submitted | $7.9 million requested| | | 61 awarded | $2.4 million awarded | ...........|.......................|................|.......................| Kansas | 217 of 305 districts | 75 submitted | $958,000 requested | | | 37 awarded | $488,000 awarded | ...........|.......................|................|.......................| Kentucky |a/ 52 of 176 districts | 102 submitted | $2.0 million requested| | | 38 awarded | $817,000 awarded | ...........|.......................|................|.......................| Louisiana | 59 of 66 districts | 45 submitted | $2.2 million requested| | | 25 awarded | $1.1 million awarded | ...........|.......................|................|.......................| Massachusetts b/ | over | $5.2 million requested| | 185 of 350 districts | 100 submitted | $1.1 million awarded | | | 38 awarded | | ...........|.......................|................|.......................| Michigan | 552 of 624 districts | 108 submitted | $11 million requested | | | 24 awarded | $2.1 million awarded | ...........|.......................|................|.......................| Oregon |c/ 132 of 218 districts| 53 submitted | $2.3 million requested| | | 12 awarded | $575,000 awarded | ...........|.......................|................|.......................| Pennsylvania 302 of 501 districts | 181 submitted |$13.3 million requested| | | 58 awarded | $2.2 million awarded | ...........|.......................|................|.......................|* Those who submitted at least one application, either independently or as part of a consortium.
** Includes single-district and consortia applications submitted for professional development, pre-service teacher education, and local reform.
a/ In Kentucky, only those districts with a district improvement plan were eligible to apply for the subgrants. For this reason, the number of applications submitted may be lower than if every district had been eligible.
b/ In Massachusetts, the state believes that some districts that may have applied for funding decided to wait until the next round of applications when a larger pool of money is anticipated.
c/ In Oregon, the number of districts that applied and that are eligible reflects the new alignment of districts that is to occur on July 1, 1995.
NOTE: Districts could have submitted up to three different types of applications. Also, a district could be involved with a consortium of other districts in submitting an application.
-###-