In 2015, the Teagle Foundation contracted with the Research Alliance for New York ICty Schools to explore the feasibility of a variety of approaches to evaluation CCC. This work--often called an evaluability assessment--was designed to determin ethe current potential for an experimental evaluation that could iluminate the impact of the CCC initiative, and to explore how the grantee partnerships might be better aligned to Teagle's goals in advance of that kind of evaluation. The project surfaced an array of issues and challenges that are relevant not only for Teagle and its CCC partners, but for many CBOs and multi-partner initiatives that are interested in evaluating their work. This report highlights a number of lessons for such, initiatives, particularly those working to support college access.

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).

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.