Research indicates that well-prepared educators help produce strong learning outcomes for students. For the continued health of Jewish education, higher education institutions should have the capacity to prepare sufficient numbers of highly qualified educators and education leaders for careers in Jewish education. Teachers, division heads, and school heads represent a substantial segment of the educator population in Jewish day schools. More than 5,000 educators enter new positions in Jewish day schools every year and are in need of adequate preparation. The most frequent obstacle to instructional quality in Jewish day schools is the difficulty in recruiting qualified teachers (Ben-Avie & Kress, 2006; Jewish Education Service of North America, 2008; Kidron et al., in press; Krakowski, 2011; Sales, 2007).

A similar problem has been observed in supplementary schools in congregational or communal settings. These schools enroll the majority of Jewish children and adolescents receiving a Jewish education in the United States (Wertheimer, 2008). In recent years, congregations have begun to replace traditional educational programs with new approaches that aim to raise the quality of instruction and the level of parent and student satisfaction relative to their programs. These new approaches may include greater integration of experiential Jewish education and community service, family learning, and the integration of all aspects of congregational learning under the leadership of one director (Rechtschaffen, 2011; Sales, Samuel, Koren, & Shain, 2010). High-quality programs that are updated or reconstructed across time to meet the needs of the Jewish community require well-prepared directors and educators. However, many directors and educators in congregational schools have not participated in teacher preparation programs, and the depth of Jewish content knowledge among these teachers is highly variable (Stodolsky, Dorph, & Rosov, 2008).

Following the end of the ArtWorks initiative, Paul Hamlyn Foundation (PHF) has continued to fund a range of activity to explore how artists could be better supported in developing their practice in participatory settings. In 2013, as part of the initiative, PHF funded seven projects through small development grants; in 2015 PHF decided to fund a further group of six projects, all with activity taking place between July 2015 and March 2016 (and some with activity continuing beyond this time). Each of the projects has received between £3,200 and £3,500. In addition, Creative Scotland funded a project which had applied through the PHF funding process, at a similar amount.

The projects largely focus on one or two of three things: supporting new or enhancing existing networks; trialling models of continuing professional development (CPD) for artists working in participatory settings; and developing improved circumstances for collaboration and/or new work. Over the seven projects, two have established new networks of artists, and three sought to build on or extend the activities of existing networks (though all involved some artists who were 'new' to the network). Six projects undertook formal CPD programmes, ranging from self/co-facilitated networks involving peer support and exchange through to formal placements attached to 'live' projects. One project focused particularly on the ways in which artists/arts organisations and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) could collaborate to support training and research for and by artists, and several projects sought to explore how employers, funders and commissioners could be brought together with artists.

The key findings of the evaluation, looking across the different projects, are discussed below. This Executive Summary considers: the approaches used with and impact upon participating artists; how projects have sought to engage with actors in the system who are not artists; how the projects have managed their resources; and what questions and issues have emerged as a result of the Development Grants.

Following the end of the ArtWorks initiative, Paul Hamlyn Foundation (PHF) has continued to fund a range of activity to explore how artists could be better supported in developing their practice in participatory settings. In 2013, as part of the initiative, PHF funded seven projects through small development grants; in 2015 PHF decided to fund a further group of six projects, all with activity taking place between July 2015 and March 2016 (and some with activity continuing beyond this time). Each of the projects has received between £3,200 and £3,500. In addition, Creative Scotland funded a project which had applied through the PHF funding process, at a similar amount.

The projects largely focus on one or two of three things: supporting new or enhancing existing networks; trialling models of continuing professional development (CPD) for artists working in participatory settings; and developing improved circumstances for collaboration and/or new work. Over the seven projects, two have established new networks of artists, and three sought to build on or extend the activities of existing networks (though all involved some artists who were 'new' to the network). Six projects undertook formal CPD programmes, ranging from self/co-facilitated networks involving peer support and exchange through to formal placements attached to 'live' projects. One project focused particularly on the ways in which artists/arts organisations and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) could collaborate to support training and research for and by artists, and several projects sought to explore how employers, funders and commissioners could be brought together with artists.

The key findings of the evaluation, looking across the different projects, are discussed below. This Executive Summary considers: the approaches used with and impact upon participating artists; how projects have sought to engage with actors in the system who are not artists; how the projects have managed their resources; and what questions and issues have emerged as a result of the Development Grants.

This white paper describes findings and lessons learned from site visits to seven GSTAS grantees: Northwestern University, Cornell University, Stanford University, Columbia University, Princeton University, the University of California-Berkeley, and the American Historical Association (AHA). We argue that a key element of success in these programs was their treatment of the development of knowledge and practice in teaching, and the development of knowledge and practice in research, as both similar and synergistic. We also observe that, despite substantial differences in project design, the Teagle projects constituted a graduate-level version of "highimpact practice," such that participants experienced first-hand the kinds of instructional strategies supported by much of the scholarly literature they were reading.

This white paper describes findings and lessons learned from site visits to seven GSTAS grantees: Northwestern University, Cornell University, Stanford University, Columbia University, Princeton University, the University of California-Berkeley, and the American Historical Association (AHA). We argue that a key element of success in these programs was their treatment of the development of knowledge and practice in teaching, and the development of knowledge and practice in research, as both similar and synergistic. We also observe that, despite substantial differences in project design, the Teagle projects constituted a graduate-level version of "highimpact practice," such that participants experienced first-hand the kinds of instructional strategies supported by much of the scholarly literature they were reading.

This white paper describes findings and lessons learned from site visits to seven GSTAS grantees: Northwestern University, Cornell University, Stanford University, Columbia University, Princeton University, the University of California-Berkeley, and the American Historical Association (AHA). We argue that a key element of success in these programs was their treatment of the development of knowledge and practice in teaching, and the development of knowledge and practice in research, as both similar and synergistic. We also observe that, despite substantial differences in project design, the Teagle projects constituted a graduate-level version of "highimpact practice," such that participants experienced first-hand the kinds of instructional strategies supported by much of the scholarly literature they were reading.

In 2011, The McKnight Foundation partnered with a set of districts and schools in the Twin Cities area, all serving high-needs students, on a PreK–3 literacy initiative. The Pathway Schools Initiative aims to dramatically increase the number of students who reach the critical milestone of third-grade reading proficiency, an indicator predictive of later academic outcomes and high school graduation. This report focuses on findings from Phase I of the Pathway Schools Initiative (2011–2015).

The McKnight Foundation selected the Urban Education Institute (UEI) at the University of Chicago to serve as the initiative's intermediary. UEI was tasked with providing the intellectual, conceptual, and managerial leadership for the initiative as well as professional development and technical assistance focused on literacy and leadership to the Pathway districts and schools. UEI anchored this support on two, validated diagnostic tools developed at the University of Chicago: the Strategic Teaching and Evaluation of Progress (STEP) developmental literacy assessment and the 5Essentials Survey.

Participating Pathway schools and districts carried out the day-to-day work of the initiative. They used grant funds to expand or refine their PreK programs; hire additional staff such as program managers, literacy coaches, classroom aides, and family engagement liaisons; and purchase high-quality instructional materials, such as classroom libraries or tablets.

An advisory group, the Education and Learning National Advisory Committee (ELNAC), was established in 2010 to help inform decisions about the initiative. SRI International has served as the initiative's evaluator since 2010.

In 2011, The McKnight Foundation partnered with a set of districts and schools in the Twin Cities area, all serving high-needs students, on a PreK–3 literacy initiative. The Pathway Schools Initiative aims to dramatically increase the number of students who reach the critical milestone of third-grade reading proficiency, an indicator predictive of later academic outcomes and high school graduation. This report focuses on findings from Phase I of the Pathway Schools Initiative (2011–2015).

The McKnight Foundation selected the Urban Education Institute (UEI) at the University of Chicago to serve as the initiative's intermediary. UEI was tasked with providing the intellectual, conceptual, and managerial leadership for the initiative as well as professional development and technical assistance focused on literacy and leadership to the Pathway districts and schools. UEI anchored this support on two, validated diagnostic tools developed at the University of Chicago: the Strategic Teaching and Evaluation of Progress (STEP) developmental literacy assessment and the 5Essentials Survey.

Participating Pathway schools and districts carried out the day-to-day work of the initiative. They used grant funds to expand or refine their PreK programs; hire additional staff such as program managers, literacy coaches, classroom aides, and family engagement liaisons; and purchase high-quality instructional materials, such as classroom libraries or tablets.

An advisory group, the Education and Learning National Advisory Committee (ELNAC), was established in 2010 to help inform decisions about the initiative. SRI International has served as the initiative's evaluator since 2010.