Building District Capacity for System-Wide Instructional Improvement in Cincinnati Public Schools

This report summarizes findings from one component of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education’s (CPRE) evaluation of the General Electric Foundation’s (GEF) Developing FuturesTM in Education program in Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS). The purpose was to closely analyze the district’s capacity to support system-wide instructional improvement. To understand how CPS, one of the four Developing FuturesTM districts that were examined, built capacity for system-wide instructional improvement, our study during Phase Two focused on a single, overarching question: to what extent has CPS central office adopted and institutionalized the seven core principles of Developing FuturesTM

Making the Academic Writing Process Explicit for Doctoral Students in the Social Sciences

The purpose of this article is to clarify the academic writing process and stages of publication for novice scholars. With doctoral student mentorship being highly dependent on relationships with faculty mentors, the quality and type of mentorship received varies widely. We designed this article to provide a shared starting point for new scholars trying to navigate the writing and publication process. We use our experiences as three newly tenured faculty members to provide some guidance for students. Additionally, this article adds to the existing body of knowledge on the academic writing process by bringing some hidden curriculum and norms to the forefront and making the information available to all students. Article highlights include four areas of focus of academic publishing: (a) the presentation to publication process; (b) journal choice and preparing for journal submission; (c) revision as a communal process; and (d) the journal response. Within this article, we have recommended several places where new scholars can make decisions ranging from where to submit papers, who and how to ask for help, and ways that they can respond to reviewers

Making the Academic Writing Process Explicit for Doctoral Students in the Social Sciences

The purpose of this article is to clarify the academic writing process and stages of publication for novice scholars. With doctoral student mentorship being highly dependent on relationships with faculty mentors, the quality and type of mentorship received varies widely. We designed this article to provide a shared starting point for new scholars trying to navigate the writing and publication process. We use our experiences as three newly tenured faculty members to provide some guidance for students. Additionally, this article adds to the existing body of knowledge on the academic writing process by bringing some hidden curriculum and norms to the forefront and making the information available to all students. Article highlights include four areas of focus of academic publishing: (a) the presentation to publication process; (b) journal choice and preparing for journal submission; (c) revision as a communal process; and (d) the journal response. Within this article, we have recommended several places where new scholars can make decisions ranging from where to submit papers, who and how to ask for help, and ways that they can respond to reviewers

Building District Capacity for System-Wide Instructional Improvement in Erie Public Schools

This report summarizes findings from one component of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education’s (CPRE) evaluation of the General Electric Foundation’s (GEF) Developing FuturesTM in Education program in Erie Public Schools (EPS). The purpose was to closely analyze the district’s capacity to support system-wide instructional improvement. To understand how EPS, one of the four Developing FuturesTM districts that were examined, built capacity for system-wide instructional improvement, our study during Phase Two focused on a single, overarching question: to what extent has EPS central office adopted and institutionalized the seven core principles of Developing FuturesTM

School-Based Structures That Support Teacher Use of Learning Trajectory Frameworks

The OGAP intervention incorporates two approaches to mathematics instruction that are well supported by research, but have not been uniformly adopted in U.S. schools: The first is ongoing formative assessment by teachers to tailor instruction to student needs (Black & Wiliam, 1998); the second is the use of learning trajectories to specify conceptual pathways for student development within specific domains (Daro et al., 2011; Sztajn et al., 2012). Implementing OGAP in schools involves a great deal of learning on the part of teachers and school leaders. It also involves embracing a fundamental shift in how one thinks about learning and designing instruction. The OGAP intervention provided grade 3-5 teachers with tools to support learning-trajectory formative assessment practices (described in other papers) and professional development (week- long summer training and several additional training days during the academic year). We also included a site-based approach to increase understanding and capacity across all participating teachers. Each school was asked to hold a bimonthly Professional Learning Community (PLC) with the primary purpose of collaboratively analyzing student work, using learning trajectory frameworks and determining appropriate instructional responses. PLCs were envisioned as a primary structure to support use of OGAP in the schools throughout the year. They were also intended to situate the use of OGAP tools and routines in each school and normalize opportunities for discourse about student thinking among teachers (Putnam & Borko, 2000). By providing teachers with ongoing and consistent opportunities to discuss their own students’ work and use the OGAP frameworks to make instructional decisions, we anticipated they could potentially deepen teachers’ understanding of OGAP and their own students’ thinking. In this paper, we examine five PLCs in the OGAP project in order to consider the extent to which this potential was realized

Evaluation of the GE Foundation-Supported Coaching & Demonstration Schools Initiative in Erie Public Schools, SY 2012-2013

This evaluation report summarizes the evidence of the implementation and early impacts of the General Electric Foundation’s (GEF) Demonstration Schools Initiative in the Erie Public School district (EPS) conducted by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) during the 2012-2013 school year. The Demonstration Schools Initiative provided intensive support to four schools (two elementary, one middle, and one high) implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in mathematics and English language arts. Concurrently during the 2012- 2013 school year, EPS also continued their implementation of another GEF-supported initiative— the Coaching Initiative—using a cadre of instructional coaches in mathematics, science, and ELA for the other schools in the district. In both the Coaching and Demonstration School Initiatives, instructional coaches are key agents of change. Their function is to target and customize the support needed at the building, grade, and teacher levels to shift teachers’ understanding and practice to align to the CCSS. For the Demonstration Schools Initiative, coaches also focused much of their time trying to develop professional learning communities (PLCs) within their schools. This evaluation was designed to answer three overarching questions: Did teachers in the Demonstration Schools gain more knowledge of the CCSS as a result of their participation in the GEF-supported initiative? What were the impacts of the initiative for the teachers in the GEF- Foundation supported Demonstration Schools compared to the rest of the district? How did teachers perceive their respective coaches throughout the district

Prominin-1 (CD133) Defines Both Stem and Non-Stem Cell Populations in CNS Development and Gliomas

Prominin-1 (CD133) is a commonly used cancer stem cell marker in central nervous system (CNS) tumors including glioblastoma (GBM). Expression of Prom1 in cancer is thought to parallel expression and function in normal stem cells. Using RNA in situ hybridization and antibody tools capable of detecting multiple isoforms of Prom1, we find evidence for two distinct Prom1 cell populations in mouse brain. Prom1 RNA is first expressed in stem/progenitor cells of the ventricular zone in embryonic brain. Conversely, in adult mouse brain Prom1 RNA is low in SVZ/SGZ stem cell zones but high in a rare but widely distributed cell population (Prom1hi). Lineage marker analysis reveals Prom1hi cells are Olig2+Sox2+ glia but Olig1/2 knockout mice lacking oligodendroglia retain Prom1hi cells. Bromodeoxyuridine labeling identifies Prom1hi as slow-dividing distributed progenitors distinct from NG2+Olig2+ oligodendrocyte progenitors. In adult human brain, PROM1 cells are rarely positive for OLIG2, but express astroglial markers GFAP and SOX2. Variability of PROM1 expression levels in human GBM and patient-derived xenografts (PDX) – from no expression to strong, uniform expression – highlights that PROM1 may not always be associated with or restricted to cancer stem cells. TCGA and PDX data show that high expression of PROM1 correlates with poor overall survival. Within proneural subclass tumors, high PROM1 expression correlates inversely with IDH1 (R132H) mutation. These findings support PROM1 as a tumor cell-intrinsic marker related to GBM survival, independent of its stem cell properties, and highlight potentially divergent roles for this protein in normal mouse and human glia

Evaluation of the i3 Scale-up of Reading Recovery | Year One Report, 2011-12

Reading Recovery (RR) is a short-term early intervention designed to help the lowest-achieving readers in first grade reach average levels of classroom performance in literacy. Students identified to receive Reading Recovery meet individually with a specially trained Reading Recovery (RR) teacher every school day for 30-minute lessons over a period of 12 to 20 weeks. The purpose of these lessons is to support rapid acceleration of each child's literacy learning. In 2010, The Ohio State University received a Scaling Up What Works grant from the U.S. Department of Education's Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund to expand the use of Reading Recovery across the country. The award was intended to fund the scale-up of Reading Recovery by training 3,675 new RR Teachers in U.S. schools, thereby expanding capacity to allow service to an additional 88,200 students.The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) was contracted to conduct an independent evaluation of the i3 scale up of Reading Recovery over the course of five years. The evaluation includes parallel rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental designs for estimating program impacts, coupled with a large-scale mixed-methods study of program implementation under the i3 scale-up. This report presents findings through the second year of the evaluation. The primary goals of this evaluation were: a) to assess the success of the scale-up in meeting the i3 grant's expansion goals; b) to document the implementation of scale-up and fidelity to program standards; and, c) to provide experimental evidence of the impacts of Reading Recovery on student learning under this scale-up effort

Directed Differentiation of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells to Microglia

Microglia, the immune cells of the brain, are crucial to proper development and maintenance of the CNS, and their involvement in numerous neurological disorders is increasingly being recognized. To improve our understanding of human microglial biology, we devised a chemically defined protocol to generate human microglia from pluripotent stem cells. Myeloid progenitors expressing CD14/CX3CR1 were generated within 30 days of differentiation from both embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Further differentiation of the progenitors resulted in ramified microglia with highly motile processes, expressing typical microglial markers. Analyses of gene expression and cytokine release showed close similarities between iPSC-derived (iPSC-MG) and human primary microglia as well as clear distinctions from macrophages. iPSC-MG were able to phagocytose and responded to ADP by producing intracellular Ca 2+ transients, whereas macrophages lacked such response. The differentiation protocol was highly reproducible across several pluripotent stem cell lines

Evaluation of the i3 Scale-Up of Reading Recovery | Year Two Report, 2012-13

Reading Recovery is a short-term early intervention designed to help the lowest-achieving readers in first grade reach average levels of classroom performance in literacy. Students identified to receive Reading Recovery meet individually with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher every school day for 30-minute lessons over a period of 12 to 20 weeks. The purpose of these lessons is to support rapid acceleration of each child’s literacy learning. In 2010, The Ohio State University received a Scaling Up What Works grant from the U.S. Department of Education Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund to expand the use of Reading Recovery across the country. The award was intended to fund the training of 3,675 new Reading Recovery teachers in U.S. schools, thereby expanding service to an additional 88,200 students. The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) was contracted to conduct an independent evaluation of the i3 scale-up of Reading Recovery over the course of five years. The evaluation includes parallel rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental designs for estimating program impacts, coupled with a large-scale mixed-methods study of program implementation. This report presents the findings of the second year of the evaluation. The primary goals of this evaluation are: a) to provide experimental evidence of the impacts of Reading Recovery on student learning under this scale-up effort ; b) to assess the success of the scale-up in meeting the i3 grant’s expansion goals; and c) to document the implementation of the scale-up and fidelity to program standards. This document is the second in a series of three reports based on our external evaluation of the Reading Recovery i3 Scale-Up. This report presents results from the impact and implementation studies conducted over the 2012-2013 school year—the third year of the scale-up effort and the second full year of the evaluation. In order to estimate the impacts of the program, a sample of first graders who had been selected to receive Reading Recovery were randomly assigned to a treatment group that received Reading Recovery immediately, or to a control group that did not receive Reading Recovery until the treatment group had exited the intervention. The reading achievement of students in this sample was assessed using a standardized assessment of reading achievement—the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). The data for the implementation study include extensive interviews and surveys with Reading Recovery teachers, teacher leaders, site coordinators, University Training Center directors, members of the i3 project leadership team at The Ohio State University, and principals and first-grade teachers in schools involved in the scale-up. Case studies were also conducted in nine i3 scale-up schools to observe how Reading Recovery operates in different contexts