Brightpath Learning Innovation Lab

Words in [brackets] are blanks you fill in with your own details when you adopt this sample in Supreme Plan AI.

Executive Summary

Brightpath Learning Innovation Lab is a nonprofit in Colorado that designs, pilots and independently evaluates classroom technology before it reaches a wider rollout. We work side by side with teachers to adapt adaptive-practice and formative-assessment software to real classrooms, train and pay teachers for their time, and measure whether a tool actually helps students learn, not just whether it is popular. An outside evaluator, not us, analyzes the results, and a Data and Privacy Coordinator makes sure every tool meets student privacy law before a single student uses it.

Schools are offered new learning software constantly, and most districts have no independent way to tell whether a tool works, whether it is accessible to students with disabilities or English learners, or whether it protects student data. Decisions are often made from a vendor's own study, a persuasive sales pitch or a free trial that ends before anyone has measured anything. Teachers are asked to adopt tools they had no part in choosing, and students can lose months to software that does not fit how they learn.

With this grant we will run pilots in about 12 classrooms, reaching about 288 students, in Year 1, growing to about 22 classrooms and 528 students in Year 2. Our goal is that every pilot tool is checked for data privacy and basic accessibility before students use it, that teachers help redesign at least one lesson sequence per pilot and that our independent evaluation reports are published whether the results are positive, mixed or negative. We do not promise that any tool we pilot will raise test scores or outcomes for every student.

Our Year 1 budget: about $538,500, growing to about $822,500 by Year 5. Each year's budget is planned to balance, with a small surplus each year. We have 7 paid staff in Year 1 and 11 by Year 5. School district and state education contracts and foundation and corporate partners add steady support, so grants fall from about 79% of our income in Year 1 to about 60% in Year 5.

We are asking the Future Classroom Foundation for $85,000 for one Instructional Designer, software licensing and hosting for pilot classrooms, an independent evaluation contract and teacher stipends paid directly to teachers. Government and school district contracts, other grants and foundation partners cover the rest, so this grant is one part of a shared funding plan.

I am Priya Anand, the Executive Director, a former classroom teacher and instructional technology coach. The numbers in this proposal are estimates based on the assumptions listed at the end, not promises.

Company Description

Brightpath Learning Innovation Lab is a nonprofit organization in Colorado. We are a 501(c)(3) public charity (or a program of one, through a fiscal sponsor), governed by a volunteer board of directors. We will provide our IRS determination letter, board list and most recent financial statements with this proposal.

Our mission. To make sure classroom technology is tested with teachers and students before it is trusted with their time, and that the results are told honestly.

What we believe. A new tool is not proven just because it is new, popular or well marketed. Teachers know their students and their classrooms, and a tool designed without them is likely to fail them. Evaluation should be independent of the people who build or sell the tool. Students' privacy and access needs come before a vendor's growth plans. We work with public, charter and private schools, and with teachers and students of every background, language and ability.

How we started. Brightpath Learning Innovation Lab began when a small group of teachers and an instructional technology coach grew frustrated watching their district adopt and then abandon several expensive platforms within two years, each time with no real evaluation of whether it had helped. They began running their own small, informal comparisons after school, documenting what worked, what did not and why, and shared the results with two other schools. Those schools asked for help running their own pilots. A regional education foundation and the state's department of education asked whether the group could formalize its process into a standing program. This proposal asks for support to do that.

What we offer:
- Pilot design. We work with a school or district to choose a tool and a question worth answering, such as whether an adaptive math program helps students who are behind grade level, and we design a pilot with a comparison group where it is ethical and practical to do so.
- Teacher co-design and training. Teachers are paid for their time to learn a tool, adapt it to their curriculum and give structured feedback. Teachers are partners in the pilot, not subjects of it.
- Privacy and accessibility review. Before any pilot begins, our Data and Privacy Coordinator reviews the vendor's data practices against student privacy law and the district's policies, and we check basic accessibility for students with disabilities and English learners.
- Independent evaluation. An outside evaluator, under contract and never paid by the technology vendor, analyzes pilot results using agreed measures set before the pilot begins.
- Honest reporting. We publish what we found, including when a tool did not help or caused problems, in a report the district and the public can read.
- Technical support. During a pilot, we provide a point of contact for teachers having trouble with a tool, separate from the vendor's own support.

Who we serve. Public, charter and private K-12 schools and districts in our region that want an independent pilot of a specific technology, and the teachers and students in those pilots. We do not accept payment from a technology vendor to evaluate its own product.

What we do not do. We do not sell, build or have a financial interest in any educational technology product. We do not promise a district that a tool will work, and we do not promise a vendor a favorable result. We do not collect or store more student data than a pilot requires, and we never use student data to train a model or to sell to anyone. We are not a school and do not provide instruction ourselves.

How we are run. A seven-member volunteer board of directors oversees the organization and approves the budget each year. The board includes two classroom teachers, a school district technology director, a learning sciences researcher, an attorney with experience in student privacy law and a certified public accountant. The Executive Director manages the organization, the Program Director runs pilots and an outside accountant reviews our books every year.

Where things stand today. We have letters of support from two school districts, a charter school network, a regional education foundation and a university learning sciences program. We have a letter of intent for our first formal pilot with a school district's math department. Before we begin, we will have an attorney review our data-sharing agreements, FERPA compliance documents and accessibility commitments, and confirm any requirements of Colorado's student data privacy law.

Problem & Opportunity

Classroom technology spending has grown quickly, and the evidence behind most purchases has not kept pace. Districts are approached by vendors with case studies the vendor itself commissioned, demonstrations in ideal conditions and free pilot periods that end before any real measurement happens. A product can look impressive in a sales meeting and still fail to help students learn, waste instructional time or work poorly for students with disabilities, English learners or students without reliable internet at home.

Teachers are often the last to be consulted and the first to bear the cost of a bad decision. A tool chosen by a district office without classroom input can arrive with no training, a confusing interface or a curriculum fit that does not match what teachers are actually teaching. When the tool does not work, it is often teachers who are blamed for low engagement, not the tool or the decision process.

Student data privacy is a serious and often overlooked risk. Some learning platforms collect far more data than they need, store it insecurely or share it with third parties in ways that violate federal and state student privacy law. Districts frequently lack the technical staff to review a vendor's privacy practices in detail before signing a contract.

Independent evaluation is rare because it is expensive, slow and not required for most purchases. A district that wants to know whether a tool actually works often has no one on staff with the time or training to design a fair comparison, and few third parties exist that are independent of the vendors they would be evaluating.

We want to be clear about what we know and do not know. Educational technology research shows mixed results overall: some tools help some students in some contexts, and the same tool can help one classroom and do nothing in another. We do not promise that any tool we pilot will raise achievement, and we will say so when our results are mixed or negative. Our role is to make the test possible and to report it honestly, not to prove that technology works.

Our region has several good resources, including university researchers and the state's own evaluation office, and few of them are positioned to run fast, practical, teacher-involved pilots at the pace that classroom decisions require. We aim to fill that gap.

Products & Services

Brightpath Learning Innovation Lab will run classroom technology pilots in partnership with school districts, charter networks and individual schools, led by a Learning Technology Program Director, Instructional Designers, Teacher Partnership and Coaching Specialists, a Data and Privacy Coordinator and an Executive Director, with evaluation by an outside contractor.

How it works, step by step:
1. Request and scoping. A district, school or teacher group brings us a technology question: a specific tool they are considering, or a problem they want technology to help solve. We meet with district leaders, teachers and, where appropriate, families to agree on the question a pilot should answer.
2. Privacy and accessibility review. Before any pilot begins, the Data and Privacy Coordinator reviews the vendor's data practices, data retention, third-party sharing and security against FERPA and Colorado's student privacy law, and we check basic accessibility for screen readers, captioning and other common needs. A tool that fails this review is not piloted, and we tell the district why.
3. Pilot design. The Instructional Designer and the district agree on a pilot design: which classrooms, for how long, what is measured and, where ethical and practical, a comparison classroom using the district's normal approach. We register the pilot's questions and measures before data collection begins, so results cannot be reshaped after the fact.
4. Teacher training and co-design. Teachers are paid a stipend to attend training, adapt lesson plans with the Instructional Designer and give structured feedback throughout the pilot. Teachers decide how the tool fits their classroom; we do not require teachers to use a tool in a way they believe is unsound for their students.
5. Classroom pilot. Students use the technology as part of normal instruction, with teacher oversight at all times. We collect only the data needed to answer the pilot's questions, and we never collect more than the district's data-sharing agreement allows.
6. Independent evaluation. An outside evaluator, under contract and with no funding relationship with the technology vendor, analyzes the results against the measures set before the pilot began.
7. Reporting. We publish a report in plain language, available to the district, teachers, families and the public where the district agrees, describing what we found, including limitations and any negative or mixed results.
8. Decision support. The district decides whether to adopt, adjust or discontinue the tool. We do not make that decision and do not have a stake in it.

What the grant will pay for. Part of one Instructional Designer's salary, software licensing and hosting for pilot classrooms, an independent evaluation contract and teacher stipends paid directly to teachers. The rest of the budget comes from school district and state education contracts, other grants and foundation and corporate partners.

Independence. We do not accept payment from a technology vendor to evaluate its own product, and we disclose every funding source for every pilot. If a vendor donates software licenses for a pilot, we disclose this in the published report.

Why this approach is strong. A district gets an honest, teacher-involved test before a large purchase or a wide rollout, students are protected by a privacy and accessibility review before anyone touches the tool, and the public gets a report it can trust because the evaluator has no stake in the result.

Market Analysis

Who benefits: public, charter and private K-12 schools and districts in our Colorado region, and the teachers, students and families who use the technology they adopt.

Our primary customers are school districts and school networks that are considering a significant technology purchase, renewal or district-wide rollout, and want evidence before committing. We also work with individual schools and teacher teams piloting a smaller tool. We expect our early partners to be districts with an existing instructional technology office that wants outside, independent capacity, and charter networks that make centralized purchasing decisions across several schools.

We will not evaluate a tool for a vendor that is paying for that evaluation, and we will decline a pilot where the district has already decided the outcome and wants only a validation study. We explain this up front.

Local data. We will use the most recent numbers from the state department of education and national surveys of educational technology spending in our final application and will not overstate them. Our own experience shows demand: our informal comparisons reached two additional schools within a year through word of mouth alone, and both districts have asked for a formal pilot. We plan for about 12 pilot classrooms and about 288 students in Year 1, growing to about 60 classrooms and 1,440 students by Year 5.

Our secondary beneficiaries are families, who gain more confidence that school technology has been checked for privacy and effectiveness; teachers, who gain paid time and a voice in decisions that affect their classrooms; and technology vendors who want honest feedback to improve their products, even when the news is not good.

We do not guarantee a pilot slot to every district that asks, and when demand is high we prioritize pilots tied to a near-term purchasing decision over pilots that are purely exploratory. We do not accept payment in exchange for a favorable evaluation from anyone.

Competitive Landscape

Other ways districts currently evaluate classroom technology, and what makes us different.

- Vendor case studies and demonstrations. These are useful as a starting point and are written or staged by the party with the most to gain from a positive result. We do not replace these; we provide an independent check.
- University research partnerships. Some districts partner directly with university researchers, which can produce rigorous studies on a slower academic timeline that may not match a purchasing decision. We work with university researchers as evaluators and move on a faster, practical timeline.
- State and regional evaluation offices. Some states run their own evaluation programs, usually for large-scale state initiatives rather than a district's specific purchasing question. We fill the gap for district-level and school-level decisions.
- Internal district pilots with no outside evaluator. Some districts run their own trials. Internal staff often lack the time, specialized training or independence to design and report a fair comparison, and results can be shaped by pressure to justify a decision already made. We bring an outside, disinterested evaluator.
- Doing nothing and buying based on reputation or price. This remains common, because independent evaluation capacity is scarce. We aim to make a better option available and affordable.

What makes us different.
- Independence from vendors: we never accept vendor funding to evaluate that vendor's own product.
- Teachers are paid partners in the design, not subjects of the study.
- A privacy and accessibility review before any student uses a pilot tool.
- Pre-registered pilot questions and measures, so results cannot be reshaped after the fact.
- Public, honest reporting, including negative and mixed results.

What we do not claim. We are new. Our track record is a small number of informal comparisons, and university researchers and established evaluation firms have far more experience. We plan to learn from them, share our methods openly and ask for advice from our partners.

Marketing & Sales Strategy

How we will reach the districts, teachers and supporters we need once the project is funded.

School districts and charter networks. We will build relationships with district instructional technology offices, superintendents, curriculum directors and school boards, starting with the two districts that have already asked for a formal pilot. We will present our model at state and regional education technology conferences and through state associations of school administrators and technology directors.

Teachers. We will recruit pilot teachers through district instructional technology coaches, teacher professional associations and word of mouth from teachers who have taken part in a pilot. We are honest about the time commitment and pay teachers fairly for it.

Evaluation partners. We will contract with university learning sciences researchers and independent evaluation firms with no financial relationship to the technology sector we evaluate, and we will rotate evaluators across pilots to avoid any single relationship becoming a dependency.

Technology vendors. We will tell vendors when their product is being piloted, invite them to share documentation and answer technical questions, and make clear that we do not accept payment from them and will publish results regardless of outcome.

Funders and partners. We will report results as totals and publish full evaluation reports, with district agreement, to funders, partner districts and the public. We will invite funders to observe a pilot classroom with district and teacher permission.

Families and the public. We will publish plain-language summaries of every completed pilot, including tools that did not help, so families can see how their school's technology decisions are made.

How we talk about our work. We describe our results in careful, calibrated language and avoid overstating what a single pilot can prove. We do not use student photographs or stories without clear, written, informed parental permission, and we never identify an individual student in a report.

Operations Plan

How the program will be carried out.

Timeline for Year 1:
- Months 1 to 2: Attorney review of data-sharing agreements, FERPA compliance documents and accessibility commitments, sign the lease, hire the Program Director, the Instructional Designer and the Data and Privacy Coordinator, contract with an independent evaluator and set up the secure data system.
- Month 3: Staff training in research ethics, student privacy law, accessibility standards and the data system. Sign the first pilot agreement and complete the privacy and accessibility review of the first technology.
- Months 4 to 8: First teacher training and co-design sessions. Pilot classrooms begin using the technology, with ongoing teacher support and data collection under the pre-registered plan.
- Months 9 to 12: Pilot data collection ends, the independent evaluator analyzes results, and we publish the first report. Begin planning the second cohort of pilots for Year 2.

Space. A small leased office with a secure data room for devices and records. Rent and utilities are about $26,000 a year in Year 1. Network wiring and a secure data closet are a one-time cost of $5,000, with a deposit and first month of rent of $5,000.

Equipment. We buy about $14,000 of equipment once at the start: loaner tablets and chargers for pilot classrooms ($8,000), laptops and presentation equipment for staff ($3,500) and office furniture and a secure equipment room ($2,500). After Year 1, we set aside about $3,000 to $4,000 a year to replace and add equipment. An initial software license and pilot curriculum library is a one-time cost of $7,000.

Staffing. In Year 1: an Executive Director, a Learning Technology Program Director, an Instructional Designer, two Teacher Partnership and Coaching Specialists, a Data and Privacy Coordinator and a part-time Program Coordinator. A second Instructional Designer joins in Year 3, a third Teacher Partnership and Coaching Specialist in Year 4, and a second Data and Privacy Coordinator in Year 5.

Pre-registration and evaluation standards. Before any pilot begins, we register the question, the measures and the planned analysis in a written document shared with the district, so the evaluation cannot be reshaped to fit a preferred outcome after results come in. The independent evaluator, under contract at about $18,000 a year in Year 1, has no financial relationship with the technology vendor being evaluated and is paid the same whether results are positive, negative or mixed. Evaluation reports are published in a form the district can share publicly, usually within 90 days of a pilot's end.

Privacy and data protection. We follow the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and Colorado's student data privacy law for every pilot. The Data and Privacy Coordinator reviews each vendor's data practices, data retention policy and any third-party sharing before a pilot begins, and a tool that does not meet the district's privacy standards is not piloted. We collect only the data a pilot's pre-registered plan requires, store it in an encrypted, access-controlled system, never use student data to train a model, never sell student data and delete data on the schedule in our agreement with the district. Parents are notified of any pilot involving their child under the district's own parent notification policy, and we follow that policy exactly.

Accessibility. Before a pilot, we check each tool for basic accessibility, including compatibility with screen readers and captioning, and we flag gaps to the district and, where possible, the vendor. We do not pilot a tool in a way that excludes students with disabilities from a classroom's normal activities.

Teacher protections. Teachers are paid stipends for training, co-design and feedback time, about $24,000 a year in Year 1, paid directly to teachers through the district's standard payroll or stipend process, never as cash outside of payroll. Teachers may withdraw from a pilot at any time without any effect on their employment, and we do not report individual teacher performance data to district administration.

Fairness and research ethics. Where a pilot includes a comparison classroom, assignment is agreed with the district in a way that is fair to students and consistent with the district's own policies; we never assign a specific student to receive or not receive instruction for research purposes alone. Studies that could identify a vulnerable group are reviewed with extra care, and we would seek an outside research ethics review for any pilot that goes beyond routine instructional evaluation.

Insurance and records. We carry general liability, professional liability (errors and omissions), cyber liability and non-owned auto liability insurance. Insurance is about $10,000 a year in Year 1. Grant money is tracked separately so we can show each funder how their money was spent, and an outside accountant reviews our books every year.

Management & Organization

The people who will carry out the project.

Priya Anand, Executive Director. A former classroom teacher and instructional technology coach with more than ten years of experience evaluating and training teachers on classroom technology. She leads fundraising, partnerships, finance and hiring, reports to the board and is the main contact for funders. (Replace this paragraph with your own director's background.)

Learning Technology Program Director (full time, hired in Months 1 to 2). Runs pilots day to day, manages district relationships and oversees the evaluation contracts. We will seek a person with experience in instructional technology and research design.

Instructional Designers (one in Years 1 and 2, two in Years 3 and 4, three in Year 5). Work with teachers to adapt curriculum to piloted tools, design training and support classrooms during a pilot.

Teacher Partnership and Coaching Specialists (two in Years 1 to 3, three from Year 4). Recruit and support pilot teachers, coordinate stipends and serve as a point of contact separate from the vendor.

Data and Privacy Coordinator (one in Years 1 to 4, two in Year 5). Reviews vendor data practices against FERPA and state law, manages data collection and retention and coordinates accessibility reviews.

Program Coordinator (part-time). Keeps records, schedules, manages the data system and prepares reports.

Board of directors. Seven volunteers who meet every quarter: two classroom teachers, a school district technology director, a learning sciences researcher, an attorney with experience in student privacy law and a certified public accountant. The board approves the budget and policies, reviews pilot independence and results each quarter and does not receive pay.

Outside professionals. An independent evaluator, under contract for each pilot, with no financial relationship to the evaluated technology vendor. An attorney reviews our data-sharing agreements, privacy compliance and accessibility commitments. An outside accountant reviews our books every year.

Staff screening and training. Every staff member passes a background check consistent with district requirements for people who work near students, and staff are trained in research ethics, student privacy law and accessibility standards before a pilot begins.

Staff pay in this plan includes payroll taxes and benefits. Salaries are Executive Director $62,000, Program Director $56,000, Instructional Designer $58,000, Teacher Partnership and Coaching Specialist $52,000, Data and Privacy Coordinator $54,000 and part-time Program Coordinator $26,000. Replace them with the pay you can offer where you live.

Milestones Narrative

Our goals for each year and how we will measure them.

- Year 1: Complete the first formal pilot in about 12 classrooms reaching about 288 students, complete a privacy and accessibility review before every pilot and publish our first independent evaluation report. A balanced budget of about $538,500, with a small surplus of about $13,700. 7 paid staff.
- Year 2: Run pilots in about 22 classrooms reaching about 528 students, add a second school district partner and publish two evaluation reports. A balanced budget of about $551,000, with a small surplus of about $13,400. 7 paid staff.
- Year 3: Add a second Instructional Designer and run pilots in about 34 classrooms reaching about 816 students. Government and school district contracts cover more of our budget. A balanced budget of about $623,500, with a small surplus of about $13,700. 8 paid staff.
- Year 4: Add a third Teacher Partnership and Coaching Specialist and run pilots in about 46 classrooms reaching about 1,104 students. A balanced budget of about $691,500, with a small surplus of about $14,500. 9 paid staff.
- Year 5: Add a second Data and Privacy Coordinator and run pilots in about 60 classrooms reaching about 1,440 students, with government and school district contracts covering about 27% of our budget. A balanced budget of about $822,500, with a small surplus of about $16,600. 11 paid staff.

What we measure:
- Classrooms and students reached by pilots, by district and grade band.
- Pilots completed with a pre-registered plan and an independent evaluator with no vendor funding relationship.
- Tools that passed, failed or required changes after the privacy and accessibility review, and why.
- Teacher participation, stipends paid and teacher-reported usefulness of training and co-design time.
- Evaluation findings, reported honestly, including the share of pilots with positive, mixed or negative results.
- Time from a pilot's end to a published report.
- District decisions following each pilot (adopt, adjust or discontinue), reported in totals.
- Cost per classroom piloted and per published report.

How we review results. The Program Director and Instructional Designers review active pilots and teacher feedback every week, and the whole team reviews outcomes monthly. Each evaluation report is reviewed by the board before publication to confirm it was produced independently of any vendor influence. Twice a year the board reviews our overall results, our independence record and our finances. Every number in this plan is a goal, and we will report what really happens, including when a pilot shows a tool does not help.

Funding Request

What we are asking for, and how the money will be used. Our request: $85,000 from the Future Classroom Foundation for one Instructional Designer, software licensing and hosting for pilot classrooms, an independent evaluation contract and teacher stipends paid directly to teachers, for July 2027 through June 2028.

The request is spread across these budget lines:
- Personnel: Instructional Designer salary, $40,000 (other funds add $18,000).
- Other: Software licensing and hosting for pilot classrooms, $20,000 (other funds add $10,000).
- Contractual: Independent evaluation and data analysis, $15,000 (other funds add $3,000).
- Other: Teacher stipends for training and co-design (paid directly to teachers), $10,000 (other funds add $14,000).

Other money in the program. School district and state education contracts, other grants and foundation and corporate partners pay the other $45,000 of those lines, plus the Executive Director's salary ($62,000), the Program Director ($56,000), the two Teacher Partnership and Coaching Specialists ($104,000), the Data and Privacy Coordinator ($54,000), the part-time Program Coordinator ($26,000), device loans for pilot classrooms ($16,000), office rent and utilities ($26,000), technology and secure data system ($10,000), outreach and community events ($8,000), insurance ($10,000), staff training ($6,000) and administration and accounting ($14,000).

Year 1 budget: about $538,500, planned to balance with a small surplus (about $13,700 after the yearly wear on equipment). Year 1 money coming in: grants $423,500 (this request plus other grants we are applying for), school district and state education contracts $70,000 and foundation and corporate partners $45,000. Year 1 costs: Executive Director $62,000; Learning Technology Program Director $56,000; Instructional Designer $58,000; two Teacher Partnership and Coaching Specialists $104,000; Data and Privacy Coordinator $54,000; Program Coordinator $26,000; software licensing and hosting for pilot classrooms about $30,000; device loans for pilot classrooms about $16,000; teacher stipends for training and co-design about $24,000; independent evaluation and data analysis about $18,000; office rent and utilities about $26,000; technology and secure data system about $10,000; outreach and community events about $8,000; insurance about $10,000; staff training about $6,000; administration and accounting about $14,000; and about $5,600 a year for the wear on equipment.

How we planned pilots. We plan for about 12 pilot classrooms and about 288 students in Year 1, with software licensing and hosting of about $30,000 and an independent evaluation contract of about $18,000. Costs per classroom are high in the first year because evaluation and privacy review are fixed costs that do not shrink with a smaller pilot, and they fall on a per-classroom basis as we run more pilots with the same staff.

About government contracts. State departments of education, regional education service agencies and some federal education technology programs fund independent evaluation and educator professional development. These funds are competitive, are awarded for set periods and have strict rules about eligibility, data privacy and reporting. We plan to apply once we have a track record. The amounts in this plan are our planning estimates, not promises, and agencies can change their budgets, rules and awards. We plan for grants and foundation partners to cover the gap if they do.

One-time startup costs. Startup costs of $48,300 are paid once from startup money, not from the yearly budget: $14,000 for equipment, $5,000 for leasehold improvements, $5,000 for deposits, $7,000 for opening supplies and inventory, $800 for licenses and permits, $9,000 for legal and professional help, $3,000 for signage, brochures and a website, $4,500 for background checks, training and first insurance.

How we got our startup number. The Funding Need Calculator in this plan adds the startup costs ($48,300), the cash we need to cover the wait for the first payments (about $21,200) and a cash cushion of about $130,500, which is about three months of Year 1 costs. That comes to $200,000. We start with $25,000 of our own savings and $175,000 in startup support from a regional education foundation, a founding donor gift and our board, $200,000 in all, which covers that amount.

The next five years. Our budget grows from about $538,500 in Year 1 to about $822,500 in Year 5. Grants are planned at $423,500, $395,000, $413,500, $425,500, $493,500 in Years 1 to 5. School district and state education contracts grow from $70,000 to $225,000, and foundation and corporate partners grow from $45,000 to $104,000. We add a second Instructional Designer in Year 3, a third Teacher Partnership and Coaching Specialist in Year 4 and a second Data and Privacy Coordinator in Year 5. Grants fall from about 79% of our income in Year 1 to about 60% in Year 5.

Savings. We plan to keep several months of costs in savings. The lowest year-end balance in the plan is about $164,800, at the end of Year 1. Government and grant payments often arrive after we bill or after we submit documents, so we plan for about $37,695 owed to us at the end of Year 1.

After the grant. Our plan is to grow school district and state contracts as districts see the value of independent evaluation, to invite foundations, universities and employers to sponsor pilots and to grow individual donors. Because a tool that does not work costs a district far more than a pilot does, strong, honest evaluation can save districts money and strengthens our case for public funding.

Risks and how we will handle them:
- A district pressures us to deliver a favorable result. We pre-register our questions and measures, use an evaluator independent of the vendor and are prepared to decline a pilot that comes with that expectation.
- A technology vendor objects to a negative finding. Our contracts with districts make clear that reports are independent and will be published as written, with the district's agreement, regardless of vendor objections.
- A student privacy or data security problem. We review every tool before a pilot, collect only pre-registered data and follow a written incident response plan.
- Demand exceeds our capacity. We prioritize pilots tied to near-term purchasing decisions and keep a waiting list.
- Government contracts are delayed or not awarded. We plan with a cash cushion, stage hiring so costs follow funding and apply to other funders.
- A grant ends. We keep savings, grow contracts and partners and keep our cost per pilot classroom low.

If you are just starting. A new organization can begin before it has its own 501(c)(3) status through a fiscal sponsor: an established nonprofit that receives grants for you and passes them to your program, usually for a fee (commonly around 5% to 10% of the grant, sometimes more; ask before you agree). Another way is to start smaller: one part-time instructional designer, a single pilot with one willing school and a volunteer evaluator from a local university, tracked carefully. Strong, honest results from a small start make larger grants easier to win.

Appendix Notes

Documents to attach with this proposal:

- Your IRS 501(c)(3) determination letter, or your fiscal sponsor agreement.
- Your most recent financial statements and your current year budget.
- A list of your board members and what each one does.
- Resumes for your Executive Director and job descriptions for the Program Director, Instructional Designers and Data and Privacy Coordinator.
- Letters of support from your partner school districts, a charter network and a university learning sciences program.
- Your pilot pre-registration template and your privacy and accessibility review checklist.
- Your data-sharing agreement template and your FERPA and state student privacy law compliance documents.
- Your independent evaluator's contract terms, showing no funding relationship with evaluated vendors.
- Your teacher stipend policy and payment process.
- Results from your informal pilot comparisons, shown as totals.
- Proof of general liability, professional liability and cyber insurance, or a quote.
If you don't have any of this yet, no worries - let's continue.

The assumptions behind our numbers (change them in the Financials section to match your own):
- Grant Revenue: $423,500 in Year 1, then $395,000, $413,500, $425,500, $493,500.
- School District and State Education Contracts: $70,000 in Year 1, growing to $225,000.
- Foundation and Corporate Partners: $45,000 in Year 1, growing to $104,000.
- Pilot classrooms and students: about 12 classrooms and 288 students in Year 1, then 22, 34, 46, 60 classrooms and 528, 816, 1,104, 1,440 students in Years 2 to 5, at about 24 students per classroom.
- Pay (a full year, per person, including payroll taxes and benefits): Executive Director $62,000, Program Director $56,000, Instructional Designer $58,000 (one in Years 1 and 2, two in Years 3 and 4, three in Year 5), Teacher Partnership and Coaching Specialist $52,000 (two in Years 1 to 3, three from Year 4), Data and Privacy Coordinator $54,000 (one in Years 1 to 4, two in Year 5), Program Coordinator (part-time) $26,000.
- Other yearly costs in Year 1: Software Licensing and Hosting for Pilot Classrooms $30,000, Device Loans for Pilot Classrooms (Tablets and Chargers) $16,000, Teacher Stipends for Training and Co-Design (Paid Directly to Teachers) $24,000, Independent Evaluation and Data Analysis (Contract) $18,000, Office Rent and Utilities $26,000, Technology and Secure Data System $10,000, Outreach and Community Events $8,000, Insurance $10,000, Staff Training $6,000, Administration and Accounting $14,000. The other costs grow between 4% and 15% a year.
- Equipment: $14,000 at the start, then $3,000 to $4,000 a year.
- Startup costs: $48,300, paid once from $200,000 in startup money.
- About 7% of each year's income is still owed to us at year end.
- Tax: none, as a nonprofit.
- Every dollar amount is an estimate. Replace them with your own quotes and real budget.

Startup Costs