This report highlights key lessons from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Community Partnerships portfolio evaluation. It assesses the communities' progress over the course of the investment, and describes their work in the areas of building public commitment, using data, building and sustaining partnerships, and aligning policies and practices. The OMG Center served as the national evaluator of this initiative and the report also discusses the steps these communities can take to sustain their programs.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Ohio / Montgomery County / Dayton;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts / Suffolk County / Boston;North America / United States (Southern) / Florida / Duval County / Jacksonville;North America / United States (Southern) / North Carolina / Mecklenburg County / Charlotte;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Arizona / Maricopa County / Phoenix;North America / United States (Western) / California / San Francisco County / San Francisco;North America / United States (Northwestern) / Oregon / Multnomah County / Portland;North America / United States (Northeastern) / New York / New York County / New York City;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Pennsylvania / Philadelphia County / Philadelphia;North America / United States (Southern) / North Carolina / Wake County / Raleigh;North America / United States (Southern) / Kentucky / Jefferson County / Louisville;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Arizona / Maricopa County / Mesa;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas / Cameron County / Brownsville;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas / Potter County / Amarillo;North America / United States (Western) / California / Riverside County / Riverside
This report highlights key lessons from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Community Partnerships portfolio evaluation. It assesses the communities' progress over the course of the investment, and describes their work in the areas of building public commitment, using data, building and sustaining partnerships, and aligning policies and practices. The OMG Center served as the national evaluator of this initiative and the report also discusses the steps these communities can take to sustain their programs.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Ohio / Montgomery County / Dayton;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts / Suffolk County / Boston;North America / United States (Southern) / Florida / Duval County / Jacksonville;North America / United States (Southern) / North Carolina / Mecklenburg County / Charlotte;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Arizona / Maricopa County / Phoenix;North America / United States (Western) / California / San Francisco County / San Francisco;North America / United States (Northwestern) / Oregon / Multnomah County / Portland;North America / United States (Northeastern) / New York / New York County / New York City;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Pennsylvania / Philadelphia County / Philadelphia;North America / United States (Southern) / North Carolina / Wake County / Raleigh;North America / United States (Southern) / Kentucky / Jefferson County / Louisville;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Arizona / Maricopa County / Mesa;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas / Cameron County / Brownsville;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas / Potter County / Amarillo;North America / United States (Western) / California / Riverside County / Riverside
Arts and Culture, Education and Literacy
Museums and schools have a long history of working together to facilitate students' learning in and through the arts. While art museums have traditionally served school audiences through arange of single-visit tours, increasingly they offer more extensive school programs in an effort toprovide students with in-depth, comprehensive learning experiences. Studies suggest that a smany as half of American museums offer some form of a multiple-visit school program in which students might visit the museum from two to ten times a year. Museums also offer extended experiences such as pre- and post-visit activities in the classroom
Recent research suggests that many multiple-visit programs focus on creative and critical thinking skills, skills that are considered increasingly important in the general education of young people. Yet, until now, the museum education field has neither articulated exactly what is meant by critical thinking skills, nor how the museum provides a unique environment for learning such skills.
In 2003, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum (ISGM), in partnership with the Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI), received a 3-year grant from the Department of Education to research students' learning in and from an art museum multiple-visit program. The ISGM's School Partnership Program (SPP) provided the context for this study and focused on three overarching goals described in the report in more detail. Launched in 1996, the SPP is a multiple-visit program serving K-8 students from neighboring inner-city public schools. Over the three years of the study, the pedagogy for the SPP shifted from a Socratic-method to more open-ended questions, using the Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) questioning model which focuses on learning to look at and make meaning from works of art, as well as gaining familiarity with the museum environment in order to feel comfortable using the Gardner as a community resource.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts-Suffolk County-Boston
The analysis here focuses on Boston's charter high schools. For the purpose of this report, an analysis of high schools is both a necessity and a virtue. It is necessary to study high schools because most students applying to charters in earlier grades are not yet old enough to generate data on postsecondary outcomes. Charter high schools are also of substantial policy interest: a growing body of research argues that high school may be too late for cost-effective human capital interventions. Indeed, impact analyses of interventions for urban youth have mostly generated disappointing results.
This report is interested in ascertaining whether charter schools, which in Massachusetts are largely budget-neutral, can have a substantial impact on the life course of affected students. The set of schools studied here comes from an earlier investigation of the effects of charter attendance in Boston on test scores.
The high schools from the earlier study, which enroll the bulk of charter high school students in Boston, generate statistically and socially significant gains on state assessments in the 10th grade. This report questions whether these gains are sustained.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts / Suffolk County / Boston
This report contributes to the discussion of charter schools by providing evidence for charter students' performance in Massachusetts for six years of schooling, beginning with the 2005-2006 school year and concluding in 2010-2011.
With the cooperation of the Massachusetts Department of Education, CREDO obtained the historical sets of student-level administrative records. The support of Massachusetts DOE staff was critical to CREDO's understanding of the character and quality of the data received. However, it bears mention that the entirety of interactions with the Department dealt with technical issues related to the data. CREDO has developed the findings and conclusions independently.
This report provides an in-depth examination of the results for charter schools in Massachusetts. It is also an update to CREDO's first analysis of the performance of Massachusetts's charter schools, which can be found on the organization's website.
This report has three main benefits. First, it provides an updated rigorous and independent view of the performance of the state's charter schools. Second, the study design is consistent with CREDO's reports on charter school performance in other locations, making the results amenable to being benchmarked against those nationally and in other states. Third, the study includes a section on charter performance in the Boston area, where much attention has focused.
The analysis presented here takes two forms. We first present the findings about the effects of charter schools on student academic performance. These results are expressed in terms of the academic progress that a typical student in Massachusetts would realize from a year of enrollment in a charter school. The second set of findings is presented at the school level. Because schools are the instruments on which the legislation and public policy works, it is important to understand the range of performance for the schools. These findings look at the performance of students by school and present school average results.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts
Education and Literacy, Employment and Labor
Proposes interest-based collective bargaining, as opposed to traditional adversarial negotiations, and empowering teachers, staff, and principals as a way to enable unions to play a critical role in improving education and closing the achievement gap.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts
Education and Literacy;Employment and Labor
Reviews research on the need for middle-skilled workers with at least an associate's degree, Massachusetts' community college system, promising models for aligning community college curricula with workforce needs, and challenges. Makes recommendations.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts
Profiles the goals, activities, implementation, and challenges of the twelve states that won Race to the Top federal funds to improve teacher quality and preparation program accountability; analyzes their strategies; and makes policy recommendations.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Northeastern)-Delaware, North America-United States (Southern)-Florida, North America-United States (Southern)-Georgia, North America-United States (Southern)-Maryland, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts, North America-United States (Northeastern)-New York, North America-United States (Southern)-North Carolina, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Rhode Island, North America-United States (Southern)-Tennessee, North America-United States (Western)-Hawaii, North America-United States (Southwestern)-New Mexico-Bernalillo County-Albuquerque, North America-United States (Southern)-Georgia-Fulton County-Atlanta, North America-United States (Southern)-Maryland-Baltimore, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts-Suffolk County-Boston, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Connecticut-Fairfield County-Bridgeport, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Illinois-Cook County-Chicago, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio-Hamilton County-Cincinnati, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio-Cuyahoga County-Cleveland, North America-United States (Southwestern)-Texas-Dallas County-Dallas, North America-United States (Western)-Colorado-Denver County-Denver, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Michigan-Wayne County-Detroit, North America-United States (Southwestern)-Texas-Harris County-Houston, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Indiana-Marion County-Indianapolis, North America-United States (Southern)-Florida-Duval County-Jacksonville, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Missouri-Jackson County-Kansas City, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Nebraska-Lancaster County-Lincoln, North America-United States (Northeastern)-New York-Long Island, North America-United States (Western)-California-Los Angeles County-Los Angeles, North America-United States (Southern)-Kentucky-Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government-Louisville, North America-United States (Southern)-Georgia-Bibb County-Macon, North America-United States (Southern)-Tennessee-Shelby County-Memphis, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Minnesota-Hennepin County-Minneapolis, North America-United States (Southern)-Tennessee-Davidson County-Nashville, North America-United States (Southern)-Louisiana-Orleans Parish-New Orleans, North America-United States (Northeastern)-New York-New York County-New York City, North America-United States (Western)-Nebraska-Douglas County-Omaha, North America-United States (Western)-California-Santa Clara County-Palo Alto, North America-United States (Western)-California-Los Angeles County-Pasadena, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Pennsylvania-Philadelphia County-Philadelphia, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Pennsylvania-Allegheny County-Pittsburgh, North America-United States (Northwestern)-Oregon-Multnomah County-Portland, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Rhode Island-Providence County-Providence, North America-United States (Western)-California-Sacramento County-Sacramento, North America-United States (Western)-California-San Diego County-San Diego, North America-United States (Western)-California-San Francisco County-San Francisco, North America-United States (Western)-California-Santa Clara County-San Jose, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Minnesota-Ramsey County-St. Paul, North America-United States (Northeastern)-New Jersey-Mercer County-Trenton, North America-United States (Southwestern)-Arizona-Pima County-Tucson, North America-United States (Western)-Washington-King County-Seattle, North America-United States (Southern)-District of Columbia-Washington
