Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1181
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of )
)E-rate Deployed Ubiquitously 2011
)
Pilot Program ) WC Docket No. 10-222
ORDER
Adopted: July 11, 2011 Released: July 11, 2011
By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this order, we provide additional information on the 20 projects selected to participate
in the Learning On-The-Go wireless pilot program (also known as the F-rate Deployed Ubiquitously
(EDU) 2011 Pilot Program) and establish reporting requirements that recipients must comply with during
the trial period. Funding for these selected projects will support off-premises wireless access to the
Internet in order to improve educational opportunities for students or to help library patrons, for example,
find and apply forjobs. The projects will receive a total of up to approximately $9 million for the 2011-
2012 funding year.2 The selected projects will promote initiatives to improve off-campus access to e -
textbooks for students, connectivity for netbooks for students living in remote, isolated areas, and access
to flexible, online education programs for home-bound students unable to attend classes.
II. BACKGROUND
2. The E-rate program (formally known as the schools and libraries universal service
support mechanism) currently supports, among other services, wireless Internet access on school and
library grounds, but requires applicants to cost-allocate support for use of wireless Internet access off the
school's or library's premises.3
See appendix A. The selected project applicants were previously announced on March 9, 2011. See Wireline
Competition Bureau Announces Selected Applications for the E-rate Deployed Ubiquitously (ED U) 2011 Wireless
Pilot Program, WC Docket No. 10-222, Public Notice, DA 11-439 (rel, Mar. 9, 2011) (EDU 2011 Announcement
PN).
2 Funding year 2011-2012 starts on July 1, 2011, and ends on June 30, 2012.
See USAC website, Schools and Libraries, Eligible Services List of the Schools and Libraries Universal Support
Mechanism for Funding Year 2010, available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocsj,ublic/attachmatchlFCC-09-
jQp4, at 8 (last visited July 6, 2011) (Funding Year 2010 ESL); USAC website, Schools and Libraries, Cost
Allocation Guidelines for Products and Services, available at http://www.usac.orejsl!applicants/step06/cost-
allocation-guidelines-products-services.aspx (last visited July 6, 2011); see also Funding Year 2010 ESL at 17
(homes or other non-school or non-library sites are provided as examples of ineligible locations) and 25 (explanation
of cost allocation). The Commission's current rules presume that services used on school or library premises are
serving an educational purpose. Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6,
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1181
3. On September 28, 2010, the Commission released the Schools and Libraries Sixth Report
and Order upgrading and modernizing the B-rate program to encourage the expansion of fast, affordable
Internet access in schools and libraries across the country.4 As part of the Schools and Libraries Sixth
Report and Order, the Commission launched a pilot program - EDU2O 11 - to investigate the merits and
challenges of wireless off-premises connectivity services for mobile learning devices, and to help the
Commission determine whether and how those services should ultimately be eligible for E-rate support.5
As part of this pilot program, the Commission authorized up to $10 million for funding year 2011 to
support a small number of innovative, interactive off-premise wireless connectivity projects for schools
and libraries. The Commission delegated implementation of this pilot program to the Wireline
Competition Bureau (Bureau).6 The Commission determined that support would be provided only for
connectivity services for the portable devices or equipment.7 The Commission anticipated that the pilot
program's funding would be provided only to existing wireless projects that had already been planned at
the time of the announcement (but may be awaiting funding) or were currently underway, to enable the
Commission to evaluate how best to use B-rate support for successful wireless projects.8 To this end, the
Commission stated that selected applicants were required to submit a report to the Bureau detailing any
data collected as a result of the program and a narrative describing lessons learned from the program.
4. On November 8, 2010, the Bureau released a public notice announcing the application
filing deadline and setting forth the application criteria.'9 Specifically, we indicated that applicants must
address the application requirements listed in the public notice and submit their applications to the
Commission by December 17, 2010 to be considered for the wireless pilot funding." In response to this
public notice, the Bureau received 94 applications seeking approximately $37 million in funding under
Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 9202, 9208, paras. 17-18
(Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order); 47 C.F.R. § 54.500(b). But see Schools and Libraries Second
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 9208-09, n.28 (identifying specific exceptions for offsite cost allocation).
"See Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, A National Broadband Plan For Our Future, CC
Docket No. 02-6, GN Docket No. 09-51, Sixth Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 18762 (2010) (Schools and Libraries
Sixth Report and Order).
Id. at 18785-87, paras. 44-50.
at 18786, para. 47.
71d. at 18786-87, paras. 47, 50.
8 Id. at 18786-87, para. 48. The Commission also waived, to the extent necessary, the applicable sections of the
Commission's B-rate competitive bidding rules for applicants that had already entered into legally binding
agreements with service providers for off-premises connectivity for portable wireless devices. Id. at 18786, para. 47;
47 C.F.R. § 54.504 (2009).
°Id.
'° See Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Application Deadline for the E-rate Deployed Ubiquitously (ED U)
2011 Pilot Pro grain, WC Docket No. 10-222, Public Notice, DA 10-2128 (rd. Nov. 8, 2010) (November 2010
Public Notice).
"November 2010 Public Notice at 1. On December 17, 2010, the Commission extended the deadline for paper and
electronic filings due on December 17, 2010 to December 20, 2010, because the Commission's website and related
electronic filing systems and documents became unavailable in the afternoon of December 17, 2010. See Extension
of Deadline, Electronic and Paper Filings, Public Notice (rd. Dec. 17, 2010).
2
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1181
the pilot program.12
5. On March 9, 2011, the Bureau released a public notice announcing 20 selected
applications for the Learning On-The-Go wireless pilot program and reminding selected applicants that
they would still need to comply with the regular B-rate application and review procedures in order to
receive funding under the pilot program.'3 The selected project applicants (in alphabetical order) are:'4
1. Aurora Public Schools (Aurora, CO)
2. Boys' Latin of Philadelphia Charter (Philadelphia, PA)
3. City School District of New Rochelle (New Rochelle, NY)
4. Clay Hill Elementary School (Jacksonville, FL)
5, Foxfire Center for Student Success (Zanesville, OH)
6. Greater Southern Tier Board of Cooperative Educational Services (Watkins Glen, NY)
7. Haralson County Board of Education (Buchanan, GA)
8. Katy Independent School District (Katy, TX)
9. Michigan Technical Academy (Redford, MI)
10. Mohican School in the Out-of-Doors, Inc. (Butler, OH)
11. Onslow County Schools (Jacksonville, NC)
12. Orleans Parish School Board (New Orleans, LA)
13. Piedmont City School District (Piedmont, AL)
14. Riverside Unified School District (Riverside, CA)
15. Roy Municipal Schools (Roy, NM)
16. San Diego Unified School District (San Diego, CA)
17. Sioux City Community School District (Sioux City, IA)
18. Southern Tier Library System (Painted Post, NY)
19. Summit Academy Community School for Alternative Learners (Canton, OH)
20. Westwood Community Schools (Dearborn Heights, MI)
6. As the Commission noted in the Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and Order, we
believe these projects serve an educational purpose by enabling innovation in learning outside the
boundaries of school buildings and the traditional school day, as well as enabling the library systeni
to innovate with new models of delivering service to library patrons.'5 Those selected project
applicants that successfully complete the B-rate application process will receive the allotted connectivity
support and will not be required to cost-allocate the dollar amount of support for the time that portable
devices are not on school or library premises. Specifically, selected project applicants will receive funds
12 See appendix B; FCC Website, Electronic Comment Filing System, WC Docket No. 10-222, available at
http:1/flallfoss.fcc. gov/ecfs/cornment searchlexecute?proceeding= I 02&applicant=&lawfirm=&author=&disseminat
ed.minDate=&disseminated.maxDate=&recieved.minDate=3%2F22%2F1 0&recieved.rnaxDate=&address.city=&ad
dress.state.stateCd=&address.zip=&daNumber=&fi1eNumber=&subinjssjonTypeJd=&checkbox exParte=true
(last visited July 6, 2011). WC Docket 10-222 was established to receive filings solely related to the wireless pilot
program.
" See EDU2O1 1 Announcement PN. This funding only relates to support for wireless, off-premises connectivity
service, and not the purchase of devices or equipment, such as mobile broadband cards, smartphones, or digital
textbooks. Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and Order at 18785-87, paras. 46, 50. Although we have selected
20 project applicants, we recognize that some project applicants may be unable to participate in the pilot program if
they fail to adhere to the B-rate program's rules and procedures.
" A brief description of each selected project is included on appendix A.
' See Schools andLibraries Sixth Report and Order at 18784-85, para. 43; 47 C.F.R. § 54.500(b).
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1181
sufficient to cover the amount of connectivity expenses eligible for E-rate funding based on their
discount; they will still be required to pay their non-discounted portion of the requested services.'6
7. In this order, we provide a more detailed overview of the selection criteria and process.
We also provide guidance to selected applicants regarding the reporting requirements at the end of the
trial period.
III. DISCUSSION
8. Selection of Projects. The Bureau reviewed the many innovative off-premise wireless
connectivity projects based on the criteria set forth in its November 2010 public notice and ultimately
chose 20 project applicants to participate in the pilot program.'7 The 20 selected projects will enable the
Commission to investigate the merits and challenges of wireless off-premises connectivity services for
mobile learning devices, and will help determine whether such services should ultimately be eligible for
E-rate support for additional schools and libraries. These selected projects will also assist us in
identifying and disseminating best practices for other schools and libraries that may be interested in
implementing such a wireless off-campus project in the future.
9. As part of our initial review, we analyzed all submitted applications to eliminate those
that did not address the criteria set forth in the November 2010 public notice.'8 As a result, we eliminated
46 applications because they did not meet our basic criteria in one of the following ways:19 (1) the
applicant's wireless program was not yet in place, was in the early planning stages, or appeared to be
solely based on receipt of EDU2O 11 funding;2° (2) the applicant did not provide detailed planning
documents for the wireless program;2' (3) the applicant's funding source or budget for the non-discounted
portion of the services was uncertain;22 (4) the applicant failed to adequately address all or some of the
application criteria listed in the public notice;23 (5) the applicant indicated that it does not filter content
16 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.523.
'7See appendix A; November 2010 Public Notice; Schools andLibraries Sixth Report and Order at 18786-87, para.
48.
' See November 2010 Public Notice.
Some of the applications may have been eliminated for more than one reason.
20 See Advanced Technology Academy; Alexandria City Public Schools; Caidwell School District; Campbell High
School; Castleberry Independent School District; Choctaw County School System; Gobles Public Schools; Green
County Board of Education; Hartford Union High School; Hermitage Public School District; Huntington Park
Senior High School; Lancaster School District; Lee County Schools; Lowndes County Public Schools; Memphis
City Schools; Mobile County Public Schools; Nashoba Valley Technical High School; Nettleton High School;
Oneida-Herkimer-Madison Boards of Cooperative Educational Services; Oxnard Union High School District;
Portland Public School District; Prairie-Hills Elementary School District; Queens Borough Public Library; Santa
Paula Union High School District; Scales Technology Academy; Seattle Public Schools; Young Oak Kim Academy.
21 See Global Technology Preparatory Middle School.
22 See Highland Park School District; Jamestown Public Schools; Merrill Community Schools; Texas CAN!
Academy Charter; Toms River Regional Schools.
23 See Hancock County Schools; Hunterdon Central Regional High School; Huntley Virtual High School; New York
City Department of Education; ReNEW Schools; Saratoga Springs City School District; Southwest Licking Local
School District; St. Jude School.
4
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1181
and failed to adequately address what internal use and enforcement procedures are in place to ensure
acceptable use of the wireless devices;24 (6) the applicant sought support for a Wi-Fi community network,
which did not fit within the parameters of the pilot program;25 or (7) the applicant withdrew its
application.26
10. The remaining applications described projects that generally fell under one of four
categories: (1) netbook/laptop projects; (2) virtual/online schools; (3) smartphone projects; and (4)
projects that use a combination of different types of devices, including laptops, smartphones, netbooks, or
electronic tablets. We reviewed the applications with the goal of selecting a diverse group of projects for
the wireless pilot program in order to gain a better understanding of the issues that schools and libraries
may face if they choose to implement an off-premises wireless project. Specifically, in selecting the pilot
program participants, we chose multiple projects in each category and considered several additional
factors, including the innovativeness of the proposed project, the number of students or patrons to be
served, and the estimated cost of the project per student or patron. Additionally, to ensure geographic
diversity in the projects selected, we looked at the location of the proposed project and the applicant's
rural or urban status to ensure a reasonable distribution. In states where a number of applications were
submitted, we selected the project(s) that committed to serve the most students or patrons in a cost-
effective manner, based on their stated cost per student or patron. For school projects, we also examined:
the grade level of the students that each project would serve, so we could evaluate whether the projects
were more or less successful with older or younger students; the subject matter being taught, to detennine
how the mobile devices were integrated and utilized in the curriculum; and the poverty level of the
students served by the school, to determine those schools in greatest need of assistance.27 We also
strongly considered a project's proposed protection measures to ensure that applicants were complying
with the statutory requirements established by the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and to
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
11. Based on the criteria and factors described above, we ultimately selected 20 projects for
funding under the wireless pilot program for funding year 20112012.28 Overall, we sought to keep the
number of projects reasonable so that we could select a representative and manageable group of projects
while keeping the funding amount within the authorized limit of no more than $10 million.29 Among the
20 selected project applicants, we selected one library, Southern Tier Library System in Painted Post,
New York, and 19 public schools across 14 states (Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Iowa, North Carolina, New Mexico, New York, Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas).
Out of the 19 public schools, there were four charter schools: Boys' Latin of Philadelphia Charter in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Foxfire Center for Student Success in Zanesville, Ohio; Michigan Technical
Academy in Redford, Michigan; and the Summit Academy Community School for Alternative Learners
in Canton, Ohio. We also selected one educational service agency, Greater Southern Tier Board of
Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) in Watkins Glen, New York.3° Additionally, out of the 20
24 See Stoughton Area School District.
25 See Houston Public Library; Presidio Independent School District; Revere Public Schools.
26 See Wayne Regional Educational Service Agency.
27See November 2010 Public Notice; Schools andLibraries Sixth Report and Order at 18786-87, para. 48.
28 See appendix A.
29 Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and Order at 18785-86, para. 46,
30 Educational Service Agencies (ESAs) in many states play key roles in the economic and efficient provision of a
wide range of educational services to their component school districts. ESAs are known by a variety of names
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1181
project applicants, there were four rural applicants3' and 16 urban applicants.32 The 19 schools selected
serve a total of approximately 35,000 students.33 The average discount rate of the selected project
applicants is approximately 75 percent with most of the selected project applicants falling between the 80
and 90 percent discount level.
12. Specifically, among each of the types of projects, we selected a sample of the most
innovative projects serving library patrons and elementary, middle, and high school students in both rural
and urban areas. Selecting various categories of projects will allow us to determine if one type of
wireless service delivery method is more successful than another type and will allow the Commission to
decide if E-rate funding should be focused more in one area. Under the netbookllaptop project category,
we selected 10 projects.34 These selected projects serve elementary through high school students with
certain projects focused on a particular set of students, such as low-income, special needs students or low-
performing students, or focused on a specific subject area, such as math and science.3' Under the
virtual/online school category, we selected two projects. 36 These projects generally cover all areas of the
curriculum and serve at-risk high schools students who are unable to attend school.37 Under the
smartphones category, we selected three applications.38 These projects are narrower in scope and focus on
including Educational Service Units (ESUs), Local Educational Agencies (LEAs), and Board of Cooperative
Educational Services (BOCES). See USAC website, Schools and Libraries, Educational Service Agencies, available
at http://www.usac.org/sl/applicants/stepO 1/esa-guidelines/default.aspx (last visited July 6, 2011). To be eligible for
support under the E-rate program, the ESA must provide elementary or secondary education as determined under
state law. Id.; 47 C.F.R. § 54. 500(c).
" See Foxfire Center for Student Success; Greater Southern Tier BOCES; Haralson County Board of Education;
Roy Municipal Schools.
32 See Boys' Latin of Philadelphia Charter; Clay Hill Elementary School City School District of New Rochelle;
Michigan Technical Academy; Mohican School in the Out-of-Doors, Inc.; Orleans Parish School Board; San Diego
Unified School District; Sioux City Community School District; Aurora Public Schools; Westwood Community
Schools; Katy Independent School District; Onslow County Schools; Piedmont City School District; Summit
Academy Community School for Alternative Learners; Riverside Unified School District; Southern Tier Library
System.
u Southern Tier Library System's project intends to cover patrons within a 3,500 square mile rural service area.
See Southern Tier Library System.
See Boys' Latin of Philadelphia Charter; City School District of New Rochelle; Foxfire Center for Student
Success; Haralson County Board of Education; Michigan Technical Academy; Orleans Parish School Board;
Piedmont City School District; Roy Municipal Schools; San Diego Unified School District; Sioux City Community
School District.
For example, the City School District of New Rochelle's laptop program targets certain student groups such as
English language learners, economically disadvantaged students, lower-performing students, and students with
disabilities in 5" through 9t1 grade. See City School District of New Rochelle.
36 See Aurora Public Schools; Westwood Community Schools.
' Id.
38 See Katy Independent School District; Onslow County Schools; Summit Academy Community School for
Alternative Learners.
6
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1181
a particular grade, subject area, or students with certain challenges.39 Under the combined project
category, we selected five projects.4° These projects utilize a combination of handheld devices, such as
laptops, smartphones, netbooks, and electronic tablets, for wireless access for elementary through high
school students and library patrons.4' Certain projects submitted by schools focus on certain subject
areas, like math and science or environmental education, while the library application focuses on assisting
unemployed and underemployed persons.42
13. Reporting Requirements. As indicated in the Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and
Order, we require all selected schools and libraries to submit an interim report to the Commission by
February 24, 2012 and a final report to the Commission by October 31, 2012. The reports will allow us
to assess the impact of each selected project on its school(s) or library and gather information regarding
any lessons learned from each project that would assist other schools and libraries desiring to implement
similar projects in the future. The Commission will evaluate the effectiveness of the Learning On-The-
Go wireless pilot program to detennine whether and, if so, how off-premise wireless services should be
made eligible for continued E-rate support based, among other things, on the costs and benefits of the
wireless projects and the effectiveness of the measures that were taken to ensure compliance with the
Children's Internet Protection Act and to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. Selected project
applicants, therefore, are required to include in their interim and final reports, at minimum, the following
information to help the Commission assess whether and how wireless off-premises connectivity services
for mobile learning devices should be eligible for E-rate funding. Commission staff also may informally
discuss project status with selected schools and libraries during the course of the year.
Required Information (all selected project applicants). To the extent possible, the interim and
final reports must, at minimum, contain the following information for all applicants:
Project Benefits
(a) a description of how the wireless devices were integrated into the project's curriculum and
objectives (including approximately how many times per week the wireless devices were
used to access program materials remotely and how many wireless devices were used during
this period of time);
(b) if available, a detailed surninary of any data collected by the school or library on the project's
outcomes and achievement of the project's goals, including usage of educational and research
resources by students and library patrons and number of devices actually used;
o for schools, include any data collected regarding the impact on test scores or other
measures of achievement levels for those students participating in the off-premises
wireless project.
For example, students enrolled at the Summit Academy Community School for Alternative Learners are on
individualized learning plans and have Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Aspergers' Disorder, which makes
learning a challenge in a traditional classroom environment. See Summit Academy Community School for
Alternative Learners.
40 See Clay Hill Elementary School; Greater Southem Tier BOCES; Mohican School in the Out-of-Doors, Inc.;
Riverside Unified School District; Southern Tier Library System.
" Id.
42 See Southern Tier Library System.
7
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1181
(c) if available, a copy of any results or summary of the results of any survey given to students,
teachers, parents or library patrons to assess any aspects of the off-premises wireless project;
and
(d) for the Southern Tier Library System, a description of how the off-premise wireless project
facilitated access in the community to any needed services, such as job applications,
govermnental services, job training, online learning opportunities, and any other community
services (including any available data of the number of patrons that were able to complete job
applications, seek govermnental services, or access educational opportunities).
Project Costs
(a) an analysis of the per student or per patron cost of the off-premises connectivity;
o for schools, specify, by term used by the school (for example, by quarter or
semester), the number of students and teachers involved or served as part of the
project, the number of those students and teachers involved or served that were able
to participate as a result of E-rate support, and, where appropriate, the number of
students at each grade level using the wireless devices for Internet access for each
specified term; and
o for the Southern Tier Library System, indicate the number of library patrons involved
or served as part of the project and the number of those patrons involved or served
that were added as a result of B-rate funding during the trial period.
Effectiveness of Protective Measures
(a) a detailed description of the measures, including specific software or filtering mechanisms,
that were taken to ensure compliance with the Children's Internet Protection Act as well as a
description of measures that were taken to protect against waste, fraud and abuse; and
(b) a detailed description of what, if any, issues arose in ensuring that the wireless devices were
used only for educational purposes.
Lessons Learned
(a) a description of any tecimical, operational, or administrative problems or issues associated
with implementing the project (such as barriers in using the wireless devices or difficulties
with the service) and a description of how those issues were addressed or are being
addressed; and
(b) a narrative of the lessons learned as a result of the off-premise wireless project (for example,
based on what you learned from the project, how would you plan and implement your project
differently if you were doing it over again?).
Selected project applicants shall submit their interim and final reports via email to
EDLJ20llpilot@fcc.gov and send a courtesy copy by mail to Regina Brown, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12h1 Street,
S.W., Room 5-A360, Washington, D.C. 20554.
14. Upon submission of the reports by the selected project applicants, the Commission will
evaluate the Learning On-The-Go wireless pilot program based upon review of the technical, operational,
and administrative issues associated with off-premise use and connectivity, the financial impact on the B-
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1181
rate program overall, measures available to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and ensure compliance with
CIPA, and the extent to which off-premise wireless connectivity enables student achievement and access
to resources, and enables the utilization of library services and resources by patrons.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1
through 4, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 15 1-154,
254, 303(r), and 403, and pursuant to sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the commission's rules, 47 c.F.R. §
0.91, and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, this order IS ADOPTED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Sharon Gillett
Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1181
APPENDIX A
Brief Project Descriptions of the Selected Wireless Pilot Program Applicants
1. Aurora Public Schools/APS Online (Aurora, CO)
APS Online is a hybrid online school, meaning the online learning experience is enhanced through
focused classroom instruction, with an emphasis on high school students with a variety of
socioeconomic challenges (medical challenges, drop-outs or the homeless), many of whom would not
still be in school if not for the flexibility to receive instruction from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
2. Boys' Latin of Philadelphia Charter (Philadelphia, PA)
This college prep high school for boys from low-income households has a program that allows
sophomores to access the Internet through wireless mobile cards. The program supports both core
subjects and its technology curriculum.
3. City School District of New Rochelle (New Rochelle, NY)
This laptop program targets certain student groups (English language learners, economically
disadvantaged students, lower-performing students, and students with disabilities) in 5th through
grade. One part of the curriculum's objective is to enable students to access digital textbooks via
wireless connectivity.
4. Clay Hill Elementary School (Jacksonville, FL)
The district currently has two pilots in progress for Internet access for its students: (1) the Leveraging
Technology Initiative, a movement toward 1:1 computing by allowing students to bring their own
devices (such as laptop computers, netbooks, tablets, and smartphones) on campus; and (2) the Digital
Equity Initiative that addresses devices for low-income students.
5. Foxfire Center for Student Success (Zanesville, OH)
This program uses netbodks to expand the availability of mobile teclmology to its at-risk secondary
students beyond the school day through an interactive educational platform that provides teachers the
ability to upload assignments and videos, and provide graphic organizers, guided notes, and
assessments,
6. Greater Southern Tier Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) (Watkins Glen, NY)
GST BOCES is an Educational Service Agency that supports 21 component districts in five counties
across the Southern Tier of New York State. Its Mobile Learning Device Project will provide middle
and high school students with ubiquitous access to online learning devices (such as smartphones and
netbooks) utilizing a virtual classroom software program.
7. Haralson County Board of EducationlHaralson County High School (Buchanan, GA)
This blended learning opportunity program integrates face-to-face learning with online learning
opportunities for high school students through the use of netbooks, with an emphasis on achievement
in math and science.
8. Katy Independent School District (Katy, TX)
This program is designed to provide all 5th graders and teachers within the district with smartphones
utilizing a classroom management system. The system allows teachers to create and upload
assignments to a server where students then can log-in and sync their device to receive the teacher's
updates.
10
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1181
Michigan Technical Academy (Redford, MI)
This netbook program utilizes an online mobile learning environment for its 5th through 8th graders
with an emphasis on increasing educational productivity and proficiency with mobile learning
devices, and to increase math, science, social studies, and English language arts proficiency with the
use of technology.
10. Mohican School in the Out-of-Doors. Inc. (Butler. OH)
This is an outdoor environmental education school. The school proposes to use the funds to expand
and strengthen environmental mobile learning for its students in grades 5th and 6thi via the
implementation of learning green tech mobile learning program, enabling computer based instruction
to students using handheld devices (such as netbooks, smartphones) in the field. For example, instead
of simply reading about the parts of the flower, students will take pictures of the parts and transmit
them via the wireless network.
11. Onslow County Schools (Jacksonville, NC)
This program is intended to provide smartphones to high school students utilizing Project K-Nect
targeted for use with Algebra I. Project K-Nect was designed to create resources for secondary at-risk
students with a goal of increasing their math and science skills.
12. Orleans Parish School Board/Mary Bethune Elementary School (New Orleans, LA)
This is a laptop program with broadband access through wireless data cards for 3rd through 6th grade
elementary students. The software suite enables teachers to determine students' level of proficiency
and engages a set of applications to empower the students with a digital learning environment.
13. Piedmont City School District (Piedmont, AL)
The Piedmont City School System became the first school system in Alabama to implement a one-to-
one laptop initiative, called MPower Piedmont. All laptops provide software and access to Internet
resources for research, communication, multimedia content creation, and collaboration for use inside
and outside of school.
14. Riverside Unified School District (Riverside, CA)
This program utilizes netbooks, tablets, and laptops for its middle school students at four schools.
About 70% of students residing in Riverside have access to free wireless connectivity and low-
income students can obtain a free refurbished computer for home use through a digital inclusion
training program. Riverside USCHOOL DISTRICT uses a cloud-based learning and content
management system, which provides a blended learning environment so students and teachers can
continue discussions and learning beyond the school walls and times. Riverside USCHOOL
DISTRICT also collaborates with partners, such as textbook publishers, to provide content in a digital
format to students.
15. Roy Municipal Schools (Roy, NM)
This netbook program provides elementary and secondary students in an extremely rural area with
off-premise Internet access to allow for interactive capabilities outside the classroom and beyond
scheduled school hours.
16. San Diego Unified School District (San Diego, CA)
The District has established a Mobile Learning Program to seamlessly integrate ubiquitous, one-to-
one computing and other 21st century technology into all teaching and learning throughout the
curriculum. Its program will serve 6th grade in eight middle schools and school-wide in two middle
schools.
11
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1181
17. Sioux City Community School District (Sioux City, IA)
This netbook program will provide wireless connectivity for 10th through 1 2th grade students across
three high schools through blended instruction in its learning management system. This allows the
district to extend the time and place of the classroom to virtually anytime and anywhere when
coupled with offsite wireless access.
18. Southern Tier Library System (Painted Post, NY)
The intent is to include handheld mobile devices, such as tablets, netbooks and smartphones as
training platforms for its mobile JobLink project which provides online job searching, resume writing,
job application skills, and digital literacy to unemployed and under employed individuals within a
3,500 square mile rural service area. The JobLink project would expand that training by providing
wireless Internet access on handheld mobile devices.
19. Summit Academy Community School for Alternative Learners (Canton, OH)
Students enrolled at this school are on individualized learning plans and have Attention Deficit
Disorder (ADD) or Aspergers' Disorder, which makes learning a challenge in a traditional classroom
environment. This program utilizes smartphones as a portal to the curriculum, study materials, and a
collaboration environment that positions students to be more effective communicators and problem
solvers.
20. Westwood Community Schools/Cyber High School (Dearborn Heights, MI)
This program will use mobile devices andlor desktop computers with wireless mobile cards along
with a comprehensive online learning environment that offers a virtual educational experience for
high school students who are unable to attend school for a variety of reasons.
12
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1181
APPENDIX B
List of Submitted Applications
1. Advanced Technology Academy
2. Alexandria City Public Schools
3. Ashwaubenon School District
4. Aurora Public Schools/APS Online
5. Boys' Latin of Philadelphia Charter School
6. Brocton Central School
7. Caldwell School District
8. Campbell High School
9. Castleberry Independent School District
10. Choctaw County School System
11. City School District of New Rochelle
12. Clay Hill Elementary School
13. Coachella Valley Unified School District
14. Dover Area School District
15. Dysart Unified School District No.89
16. Foxfire Center for Student Success
17. Genesis School
18. Global Technology Preparatory Middle School
19. GOAL Academy
20. Gobles Public Schools
21. Greater Southern Tier Boards of Cooperative Educational Services
22. Green County Board of Education
23. Hancock County Schools
24. Haralson County Board of Education
25. Hartford Union High School
26. Hermitage Public School District
27. Highland Park School District
28. Houston Public Library
29. Hunterdon Central Regional High School
30. Huntington Park Senior High School
31. Huntley Virtual High School
32. Indianapolis Public Schools
33. Jamestown Public Schools
34. Kansas Public School District
35. Katy Independent School District
36. Lancaster School District
37. Learning Without Limits
38. Lee County Schools
39. Lincoln Intermediate Unit #12
40. Lowndes County Public Schools
41. Mathematics Network Project
42. Maysville Local School District
43. McKinney Independent School District
44. Melrose Elementary School
45. Memphis City Schools
46. Merrill Community Schools
47, Michigan Technical Academy
13
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1 181
48. Mobile County Public Schools
49. Mohican School in the Out-of-Doors, Inc.
50. Monte Vista School District
51. Nashoba Valley Technical High School
52. Nettleton High School
53. New York City Department of Education
54. Newark Digital Academy
55. Oneida-Herkimer-Madison Boards of Cooperative Educational Services
56. Onslow County Schools
57. Orleans Parish School Board
58. Oxnard Union High School District
59. Pasadena Independent School District
60. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School
61. Piedmont City School District
62. Pincoiming Area School District
63. Portland Public School District
64. Prairie-Hills Elementary School District #144
65. Presidio Independent School District
66. Queens Borough Public Library
67. ReNEW Schools
68. Revere Public Schools
69. Reynoldsburg School District
70. Riverside Unified School District
71. Robert Louis Stevenson Middle School
72. Roy Municipal Schools
73. San Diego National School District
74. San Diego Unified School District
75. Santa Paula Union High School District
76. Saratoga Springs City School District
77. Scales Technology Academy
78. Seattle Public Schools
79. Sioux City Community School District
80. Southern Tier Library System
81. Southwest Licking Local School District
82. St. Jude School
83. St. Marys City School District
84. Stoughton Area School District
85. Summit Academy Community School for Alternative Learners
86. Texas CAN! Academy Charter
87. Thomasville City Schools
88. Toms River Regional Schools
89. Val Verde Unified School District
90. Vancouver Public Schools
91. Virtual Learning Academy of St Clair County
92. Wayne Regional Educational Service Agency
93. Westwood Community Schools
94. Young Oak Kim Academy
14