Arts and Culture;Education and Literacy
Highlights:
* 58 percent of Chicago arts-school alumni took up residence in the city within 5 years of the date of their last attendance. Of the regions compared in this report, only New York City has a greater portion of its arts-school alumni taking up residence in the city within 5 years, at 66 percent.
* 51 percent of Chicago arts-school alumni were out-of-state applicants who came to Chicago and were still living in the city within five years of their last date of attendance. This is the second highest portion of out-of-state applicants taking up residence in the city of their alma mater. New York City's rate was highest at 54 percent.
* Of arts-school alumni who searched for work, 38 percent of those attending school in Chicago obtained work prior to leaving their institution; 85 percent obtained work within a year. Alumni from other regions had similar experiences.
*50 percent of Chicago's alumni reported that their first job or work experience was "closely related" to their arts-school training. However, alumni from institutions in Los Angeles County, Cleveland/Columbus and New York City reported higher rates of their first work experience being closely related to their arts training.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Illinois / Chicago Metropolitan Area;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts / Suffolk County / Boston;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts / Middlesex County / Cambridge;North America / United States (Western) / California / Los Angeles County;North America / United States (Western) / California (San Francisco Bay Area);North America / United States (Midwestern) / Ohio / Cuyahoga County / Cleveland;North America / United States (Midwestern) / Ohio / Franklin County / Columbus;North America / United States (Northeastern) / New York / New York County / New York City
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
Education and Literacy, Employment and Labor
According to this issue brief, to improve the feedback new teachers receive districts must rethink feedback as a complex system of many parts, rather than simply a series of isolated conversations between principals and teachers. This paper is designed to guide districts through this process, helping them recognize the interconnected factors at the district, school, and classroom level that shape the nature of feedback.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Delaware, North America-United States (Southern)-Tennessee
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
Ohio Governor Kasich issued his "Achievement Everywhere" plan in early February, and as details came out over the following weeks we again asked Professor Hill if he would provide a review of the governor's plan. Professor Hill took on the challenge and here the Thomas B. Fordham Institute proudly presents "Steps in the Right Direction: Assessing "Ohio Achievement Everywhere" -- the Kasich Plan", which should interest lawmakers, policy makers, journalists, and others concerned about the education of Ohio's children.
As the title notes, Professor Hill observes that Governor Kasich's reform plan will advance Ohio and it schools, but it could be better and bolder. Or, as Professor Hill concludes, "Governor Kasich's Achievement Everywhere moves Ohio in the right direction, but it needs to go further if the ultimate goal is a world-class education for all students."
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio
Education and Literacy;Government Reform
This paper refocuses attention on the importance of supporting Ohio students. States may appreciate deregulated higher education because, like other forms of privatization, it reduces support, responsibility and oversight. University administrations may see opportunities to raise revenues through real estate deals, parking arrangements, subcontracting, reducing staff compensation, and changing other employment relationships. Private contractors and the business community may favor these arrangements because there are lucrative possibilities for contracts, real estate deals and other arrangements. But the point of the system is not to serve the needs of legislators, administrators or contractors -- it is to educate students. Students, families, employers and taxpayers need a vibrant higher education system capable of delivering affordable academic programs that connect to the 21st century economy.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Ohio
Ohio's charter-closure law is touted as one of the toughest in the nation because it requires the automatic closure of charter schools that consistently fail to meet academic standards. The law has been showcased by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) in its "One Million Lives" campaign, which calls for tougher state laws to close failing charter schools.
The widespread attention and support of the NACSA campaign has pushed Ohio's closure law into the spotlight as a model of accountability for low-performing charter schools. However, The Plain Dealer's editorial board, in a commentary on NACSA's praise of Ohio's charter school accountability standards, pointed out what NACSA did not: Ohio's charter school laws, while they may have stronger mandates for closure than those of other states, are still replete with loopholes.
Since the charter-closure law went into effect in 2008, 20 schools across the state have met closure criteria, and all are currently listed as closed by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). But an investigation of the schools by Policy Matters revealed that eight schools -- and the management companies that run them -- have found ways to skirt the closure law and remain open, severely undermining the law's effectiveness and highlighting the lax accountability that prevails in Ohio's charter sector. For-profit managers -- the Leona Group, Mosaica Education and White Hat Management -- operate six of the reopened schools.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio
