Education and Literacy;Parenting and Families
A growing number of cities now provide a range of public school options for families to choose from. Choosing a school can be one of the most stressful decisions parents make on behalf of their child. Getting access to the right public school will determine their child's future success. How are parents faring in cities where choice is widely available? This report answers this question by examining how parents' experiences with school choice vary across eight "high-choice" cities: Baltimore, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. Our findings suggest parents are taking advantage of the chance to choose a non-neighborhood-based public school option for their child, but there's more work to be done to ensure choice works for all families.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Western)-Colorado-Denver County-Denver;North America-United States (Southern)-Maryland-Baltimore;North America-United States (Southern)-Louisiana-Orleans Parish-New Orleans;North America-United States (Southern)-District of Columbia-Washington;North America-United States (Northeastern)-Pennsylvania-Philadelphia County-Philadelphia;North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio-Cuyahoga County-Cleveland;North America-United States (Midwestern)-Michigan-Wayne County-Detroit;North America-United States (Midwestern)-Indiana-Marion County-Indianapolis
Education and Literacy;Race and Ethnicity
By 2020, more than six out of 10 U.S. jobs will require postsecondary training. Despite a slight increase in college attainment nationally in recent years, the fastest-growing minority groups are being left behind. Only 25 and 18 percent of Blacks and Hispanics, respectively, hold at least an associate's degree, compared with 39 percent of Whites. Without substantial increases in educational attainment, particularly for our nation's already underserved groups, the United States will have a difficult time developing a robust economy.
Home to 65 percent of Americans, and a majority of all African Americans and Hispanics (74 and 79 percent, respectively), the 100 largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) can play a strong role in developing this nation's workforce. In fact, to reach a national attainment target that meets our workforce needs, more than half of college degrees could be generated from the these cities. The majority of degrees needed among African-American and Hispanic adults could also be produced in MSAs.
Clearly, investing in and organizing around the potential of metropolitan areas is critical, and the stakes have never been higher. Yet the current funding climate requires strategic public and private partnerships to invest in education innovation and human capital development in order to have the most robust impact on sustainable national growth. For this study, the Institute for Higher Education (IHEP) sought to follow up on its previous work examining MSA educational attainment rates by further exploring policies that either inhibit or facilitate degree production, and identifying metropolitan-level, cross-section collaborations that help local leaders contribute to national completion goals.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Southern) / District of Columbia / Washington;North America / United States (Southern) / Maryland / Baltimore;North America / United States (Southern) / Tennessee / Shelby County / Memphis;North America / United States (Western) / Nebraska / Douglas County / Omaha
In recent years, 'continuous improvement' has become a popular catchphrase in the field of education. However, while continuous improvement has become commonplace and well-documented in other industries, such as healthcare and manufacturing, little is known about how this work has manifested itself in education.
This white paper attempts to map the landscape of this terrain by identifying and describing organizations engaged in continuous improvement, and by highlighting commonalities and differences among them. The findings classify three types of organizations engaged in continuous improvement: those focused on instructional improvement at the classroom level; those concentrating on system-wide improvement; and those addressing collective impact. Each type is described in turn and illustrated by an organizational case study. Through the analysis, six common themes that characterize all three types of organizations (e.g., leadership and strategy, communication and engagement, organizational infrastructure, methodology, data collection and analysis, and building capacity) are enumerated.
This white paper makes four concluding observations. First, the three case studies provide evidence of organizations conducting continuous improvement work in the field of education, albeit at different levels and in different ways. Second, entry points to continuous improvement work are not mutually exclusive, but are nested and, hence, mutually informative and comparative. Third, continuous improvement is not synonymous with improving all organizational processes simultaneously; rather, research and learning cycles are iterative and gradual in nature. Fourth, despite being both iterative and gradual, it is imperative that improvement work is planned and undertaken in a rigorous, thoughtful, and transparent fashion.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Southern)-Maryland-Montgomery County, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Wisconsin-Waukesha County-Menomonee Falls, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio-Hamilton County-Cincinnati
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
Analyzes small school design elements driving extra per-student spending, needed start-up and ramp-up investments, and impact on facility use and enrollment projections. Offers a tool for quantifying resource use and suggestions for effective allocation.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Southern)-Maryland-Baltimore, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts-Suffolk County-Boston, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Illinois-Cook County-Chicago, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Illinois, North America-United States (Southern)-Maryland, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts
Arts and Culture, Nonprofits and Philanthropy
Provides an overview of an initiative to expand access to integrated arts education with partnership building, advocacy, and strategic communications activities. Discusses Ford's theory of change, challenges, lessons learned, and case summaries.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Western)-California, North America-United States (Southern)-Maryland, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Minnesota, North America-United States (Southern)-Mississippi, North America-United States, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio, North America-United States (Southwestern)-Texas, North America-United States (Southern)-District of Columbia-Washington
Quantifies the economic contributions of higher education to Baltimore's economy. Explores lessons to be drawn from Silicon Valley and other areas where higher education, business, and government collaborated to build strong research-based economies.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Southern) / Maryland / Baltimore
Profiles Arizona's efforts to raise higher education productivity -- delivering quality education to more students at lower cost -- via partnerships between community colleges and state universities. Lists initiatives in other grantee states.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Indiana;North America / United States (Southern) / Maryland;North America / United States (Southern) / Tennessee;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Arizona;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas;North America / United States (Midwestern) / Ohio;North America / United States (Western) / Montana
