We estimate the effects on postsecondary education outcomes of the Kalamazoo Promise, a generous place-based college scholarship. We identify Promise effects using difference-indifferences, comparing eligible to ineligible graduates before and after the Promise's initiation. According to our estimates, the Promise significantly increases college enrollment, college credits attempted, and credential attainment. Stronger effects occur for minorities and women. Predicted lifetime earnings effects of the Promise's credential gains, compared to the Promise's scholarship costs, represent an internal rate of return of 11.3 percent. Based on our results, simple and generous scholarships can significantly increase educational attainment and provide net economic benefits.

Improving Michigan STEM Teachers and Teaching analyzed the efforts of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation's Woodrow Wilson Michigan Teaching Fellowship, which began in the state in 2010 with the generous financial support of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Woodrow Wilson selected and worked closely with six Michigan universities that demonstrated the capacity, willingness, and leadership to create model teacher education programs—rigorous, highly selective, clinically based programs integrating disciplinary content and pedagogical instruction.

Partner universities in the state included Eastern Michigan University, Grand Valley State University, Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, Wayne State University, and Western Michigan University. Teaching Fellows completed their clinical experiences in school districts across the state, including Ann Arbor, Battle Creek, Benton Harbor, Comstock, Detroit, Godwin Heights, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Lincoln, and Ypsilanti.

"Woodrow Wilson Fellows are indeed taking on the challenge of teaching in Michigan's high-need classrooms, and they are well prepared to work with students in those schools," the report states "Michigan students taught by Fellows are four times more likely to be black (61 percent, as opposed to -15 percent for inexperienced non-Fellows); about twice as likely to be eligible for free/reduced price lunch (80 percent, versus 44 percent for non-Fellows); more likely to have changed schools within the school year (31 percent, versus 10 percent for non-Fellows); three times as likely to be English language learners (10 percent, versus 3 percent for non-Fellows), and more likely to have special education needs (16 percent, compared to 10 percent for non-Fellows)."

The analysis found that W.K. Kellogg Foundation Woodrow Wilson Michigan Teaching Fellows were placed in some of the state's most challenging teaching assignments, while bringing more subject matter expertise to Michigan classrooms than did their peers. Fully 100 percent of Woodrow Wilson Fellows hold a Michigan STEM license. By contrast, just 87 percent of new Michigan teachers statewide who taught core STEM classes have STEM licenses.

Information provided by the Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) at the American Institutes for Research demonstrated that the Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship Program does lead to improved teacher performance in the high-need schools that the program focuses on, as measured by Fellows' impact on student achievement. In addition, compared to students of non-Fellows, students of Woodrow Wilson Fellows showed more growth in middle school math, middle school science, and high school science. The exception was Fellows teaching high school science, who only outperformed the same-district inexperienced comparison group.

As the formal W.K. Kellogg-Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship program concludes, each of the six partner universities demonstrates how the transformation project will be continued in ongoing teacher education efforts across the state. Eastern Michigan University, for instance, has built a new degree program based on the Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship model that is moving, as intended, into non-STEM areas. Michigan State University and the University of Michigan have embedded elements of the WKKF-WW Michigan Teaching Fellowship within their larger teacher education communities. The WKKF-WW Teaching Fellowship program has also resulted in the development of models for specialized preparation programs in other subject areas in Western Michigan University's college of education.

Improving Michigan STEM Teachers and Teaching analyzed the efforts of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s Woodrow Wilson Michigan Teaching Fellowship, which began in the state in 2010 with the generous financial support of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Woodrow Wilson selected and worked closely with six Michigan universities that demonstrated the capacity, willingness, and leadership to create model teacher education programs—rigorous, highly selective, clinically based programs integrating disciplinary content and pedagogical instruction.

Partner universities in the state included Eastern Michigan University, Grand Valley State University, Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, Wayne State University, and Western Michigan University. Teaching Fellows completed their clinical experiences in school districts across the state, including Ann Arbor, Battle Creek, Benton Harbor, Comstock, Detroit, Godwin Heights, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Lincoln, and Ypsilanti.

“Woodrow Wilson Fellows are indeed taking on the challenge of teaching in Michigan’s high-need classrooms, and they are well prepared to work with students in those schools,” the report states “Michigan students taught by Fellows are four times more likely to be black (61 percent, as opposed to -15 percent for inexperienced non-Fellows); about twice as likely to be eligible for free/reduced price lunch (80 percent, versus 44 percent for non-Fellows); more likely to have changed schools within the school year (31 percent, versus 10 percent for non-Fellows); three times as likely to be English language learners (10 percent, versus 3 percent for non-Fellows), and more likely to have special education needs (16 percent, compared to 10 percent for non-Fellows).”

The analysis found that W.K. Kellogg Foundation Woodrow Wilson Michigan Teaching Fellows were placed in some of the state’s most challenging teaching assignments, while bringing more subject matter expertise to Michigan classrooms than did their peers. Fully 100 percent of Woodrow Wilson Fellows hold a Michigan STEM license. By contrast, just 87 percent of new Michigan teachers statewide who taught core STEM classes have STEM licenses.

Information provided by the Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) at the American Institutes for Research demonstrated that the Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship Program does lead to improved teacher performance in the high-need schools that the program focuses on, as measured by Fellows’ impact on student achievement. In addition, compared to students of non-Fellows, students of Woodrow Wilson Fellows showed more growth in middle school math, middle school science, and high school science. The exception was Fellows teaching high school science, who only outperformed the same-district inexperienced comparison group.

As the formal W.K. Kellogg-Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship program concludes, each of the six partner universities demonstrates how the transformation project will be continued in ongoing teacher education efforts across the state. Eastern Michigan University, for instance, has built a new degree program based on the Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship model that is moving, as intended, into non-STEM areas. Michigan State University and the University of Michigan have embedded elements of the WKKF-WW Michigan Teaching Fellowship within their larger teacher education communities. The WKKF-WW Teaching Fellowship program has also resulted in the development of models for specialized preparation programs in other subject areas in Western Michigan University’s college of education.

This study about access to quality early childhood care and education programs in Detroit identifies neighborhoods where the greatest numbers of young children need better access to providers of early childhood care and education. It also makes recommendations for improving access to quality early childhood care and education services.

Afterschool programs are seen as a way to keep low-income children safe and to foster the skills needed to succeed in school and life. Many cities are creating afterschool systems to ensure that such programs are high-quality and widely available. One way to do so is to ensure afterschool systems develop and maintain a data system.This interim report presents early findings from a study of how afterschool systems build their capacity to understand and improve their practices through their data systems. It examines afterschool data systems in nine cities that are part of The Wallace Foundation’s Next Generation Afterschool System-Building initiative, a multi-year effort to strengthen systems that support access to and participation in high-quality afterschool programs for low-income youth. The cities are Baltimore, Md., Denver, Colo., Fort Worth, Texas, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jacksonville, Fla.,Louisville, Ky., Nashville, Tenn., Philadelphia, Pa., and Saint Paul, Minn.To date, research on data use in afterschool systems has focused more on the implementation of technology than on what it takes to develop and sustain effective data use. This study found that the factors that either enabled or hampered the use of data in afterschool systems—such as norms and routines, partner relationships, leadership and coordination, and technical knowledge—had as much to do with the people and process components of the systems as with the technology.Strategies that appear to contribute to success include:

•     Starting small. A number of cities intentionally started with a limited set of goals for data collection and use, and/or a limited set of providers piloting a new data system, with plans to scale up gradually.

•     Ongoing training. Stakeholders learned that high staff turnover required ongoing introductory trainings to help new hires use management information systems and data. Providing coaching and developing manuals also helped to mitigate the effects of turnover and to further the development of more experienced and engaged staff.

•     Outside help. Systems varied in how they used the expertise of outside research partners. Some cities identified a research partner who participated in all phases of the development of their data systems. Others used the relationship primarily to help analyze and report data collected by providers. Still others did not engage external research partner, but identified internal staff to support the system. In any of these scenarios, dedicated staffers with skills in data analytics were key.

Afterschool programs are seen as a way to keep low-income children safe and to foster the skills needed to succeed in school and life. Many cities are creating afterschool systems to ensure that such programs are high-quality and widely available. One way to do so is to ensure afterschool systems develop and maintain a data system.This interim report presents early findings from a study of how afterschool systems build their capacity to understand and improve their practices through their data systems. It examines afterschool data systems in nine cities that are part of The Wallace Foundation’s Next Generation Afterschool System-Building initiative, a multi-year effort to strengthen systems that support access to and participation in high-quality afterschool programs for low-income youth. The cities are Baltimore, Md., Denver, Colo., Fort Worth, Texas, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jacksonville, Fla.,Louisville, Ky., Nashville, Tenn., Philadelphia, Pa., and Saint Paul, Minn.To date, research on data use in afterschool systems has focused more on the implementation of technology than on what it takes to develop and sustain effective data use. This study found that the factors that either enabled or hampered the use of data in afterschool systems—such as norms and routines, partner relationships, leadership and coordination, and technical knowledge—had as much to do with the people and process components of the systems as with the technology.Strategies that appear to contribute to success include:

•     Starting small. A number of cities intentionally started with a limited set of goals for data collection and use, and/or a limited set of providers piloting a new data system, with plans to scale up gradually.

•     Ongoing training. Stakeholders learned that high staff turnover required ongoing introductory trainings to help new hires use management information systems and data. Providing coaching and developing manuals also helped to mitigate the effects of turnover and to further the development of more experienced and engaged staff.

•     Outside help. Systems varied in how they used the expertise of outside research partners. Some cities identified a research partner who participated in all phases of the development of their data systems. Others used the relationship primarily to help analyze and report data collected by providers. Still others did not engage external research partner, but identified internal staff to support the system. In any of these scenarios, dedicated staffers with skills in data analytics were key.

Afterschool programs are seen as a way to keep low-income children safe and to foster the skills needed to succeed in school and life. Many cities are creating afterschool systems to ensure that such programs are high-quality and widely available. One way to do so is to ensure afterschool systems develop and maintain a data system.This interim report presents early findings from a study of how afterschool systems build their capacity to understand and improve their practices through their data systems. It examines afterschool data systems in nine cities that are part of The Wallace Foundation's Next Generation Afterschool System-Building initiative, a multi-year effort to strengthen systems that support access to and participation in high-quality afterschool programs for low-income youth. The cities are Baltimore, Md., Denver, Colo., Fort Worth, Texas, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jacksonville, Fla.,Louisville, Ky., Nashville, Tenn., Philadelphia, Pa., and Saint Paul, Minn.To date, research on data use in afterschool systems has focused more on the implementation of technology than on what it takes to develop and sustain effective data use. This study found that the factors that either enabled or hampered the use of data in afterschool systems—such as norms and routines, partner relationships, leadership and coordination, and technical knowledge—had as much to do with the people and process components of the systems as with the technology.Strategies that appear to contribute to success include:

•     Starting small. A number of cities intentionally started with a limited set of goals for data collection and use, and/or a limited set of providers piloting a new data system, with plans to scale up gradually.

•     Ongoing training. Stakeholders learned that high staff turnover required ongoing introductory trainings to help new hires use management information systems and data. Providing coaching and developing manuals also helped to mitigate the effects of turnover and to further the development of more experienced and engaged staff.

•     Outside help. Systems varied in how they used the expertise of outside research partners. Some cities identified a research partner who participated in all phases of the development of their data systems. Others used the relationship primarily to help analyze and report data collected by providers. Still others did not engage external research partner, but identified internal staff to support the system. In any of these scenarios, dedicated staffers with skills in data analytics were key.

The report offers a series of short essays from 18 teachers, each reflecting on what inspired and guided them into the teaching profession. Some of the highlights include:

• "I've come to realize that my learning process in the classroom actually feels a whole lot like the science I practiced at the bench: engineering experimental procedures, collecting and analyzing data, and formulating questions about next steps. It turns out that my scientific worldview can really improve learning outcomes for my students," said Kristin Milks, a biology and earth science teacher in Bloomington, IN, who enrolled in a teacher preparation program shortly after completing her Ph.D. in biochemistry.
• "What transforms someone from being a good teacher to being a great teacher is the passion to make connections with students, to constantly evaluate and adjust their practice to do what is in the students' best interest," said Catherine Ann Haney, a Virginia Spanish teacher who has recently been teaching in Santiago, Chile.
• "Enrolling in a teacher education program, instead of starting my career as a teacher first and then obtaining my master's degree after, meant I had a cohort of other soon-to-be teachers to learn with as we persevered through a very rigorous and demanding year," said Jeremy Cress, a math teacher in Philadelphia.
• "I realized that being a good math teacher does not mean explaining clearly, making kids like me, or making math fun. Rather, it means giving students the opportunity to solve problems by themselves from start to finish, to struggle and persevere, and to learn from each other's particular strengths," said Brittany Leknes, a math teacher from Sunnyvale, CA.
• "Together my students and I co-create their identities, their sense of themselves, and their understanding of their place in society. Because I believe wholly in my students' own power, I teach to disrupt school cultures that suggest that students need to be anything less than their whole selves," said Kayla Vinson, who taught social students in the Harlem Children's Zone.

Created in 2007, the Leonore Annenberg-Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship was designed to serve as the equivalent of a national "Rhodes Scholarship" for teaching. Working with Stanford University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Virginia, and the University of Washington, the Woodrow Wilson Foundation provided $30,000 stipends for exceptionally able candidates to complete a yearlong master's degree program. In exchange, the teacher candidates agreed to teach for three years in high-need secondary schools across the country. The Leonore Annenberg Teaching Fellowship was funded through grants from the Annenberg Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York. It served as the basis for the Woodrow Wilson Foundation's successful Teaching Fellowship program, which now operates in five states (Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, and Ohio), operating in partnership with 28 universities. Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellows complete a rigorous yearlong master's degree program, coupled with a robust yearlong clinical experience. Once they earn their degrees, Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellows teach in high-need STEM classrooms, while receiving three years of coaching and mentoring.