Academic literature on the topic 'Massachusetts. Bureau of Institutional Schools'

Purpose: This study explores the contributions and effectiveness of the Jockey Club “Giftedness into Flourishing Talents” Project (Project GIFT) in supporting learner diversity in gifted education, including meeting the educational and psychological needs of highly capable and gifted students in Hong Kong. Design/Approach/Methods: This study investigates the effectiveness of Project GIFT in supporting the development of diversity in learning in 20 project schools. Through close cooperation with project schools, Project GIFT comprised six developmental areas: school development, curriculum development, teachers’ professional development, parent empowerment, student development, and financial support. To further assess the usefulness of the school-based support provided by Project GIFT, this study examines the implementation of school-based gifted education in two project schools based on the aforementioned components. Findings: This study reveals Project GIFT’s significant role in promoting school-based gifted education in Hong Kong schools. Indeed, it was the first cross-institutional and research-based educational program in gifted education that intervened at both Level 1 (whole class) and Level 2 (pullout) of the three-tiered policy stipulated by the Hong Kong Education Bureau. One of the few gifted education programs implemented in Asia, Project GIFT focused on six key components to specifically support high-ability and gifted students with diverse educational and affective needs. This study shows that Project GIFT significantly enhanced diversity in learning, its collaboration with two key schools resulting in the successful enhancement of school development, professional development, curriculum development, student development, parent empowerment, and financial support. Originality/Value: The article fills the research gap by examining the effectiveness of a school-based gifted education program focused on enriching and differentiating curricula for different regular and pull-out programs. In doing so, this article attests to the success of the program in addressing the educational and psychosocial needs of gifted students at local schools in Hong Kong.

Introduction Large granular lymphocytic leukemia (LGLL) is a rare mature clonal lymphoproliferative disorder derived from T-cell or natural killer (NK)-cell lineages. Even though LGLL has usually an indolent course, a majority of patients (pts) require therapy due to cytopenias, recurrent infections, autoimmune disorders or symptomatic splenomegaly. There is no standard frontline therapy established for pts with LGLL based on randomized prospective studies but a single-agent immunosuppressive therapy has been used for almost four decades. In the present study, we analyzed clinical and pathological characteristics, responses to therapy and outcomes of patients diagnosed at Moffitt Cancer Center. Methods A total of 303 consecutive LGLL pts diagnosed between 2001 and 2017 were included in the study. Pts who did not meet the WHO diagnostic criteria of peripheral blood (PB) LGL count ≥2.0 k/ μL but presented with smaller, persistent LGL clonal populations along with characteristic immunophenotype and clinical features such as cytopenias, recurrent infections, autoimmune disorders, splenomegaly, and bone marrow involvement with identical clonal LGL population were considered to have LGLL. Responses to treatment were categorized as complete response (CR), partial response (PR) and no response. CR was defined as Hb>12g/dL, ANC≥1.5k/μL, PLT>150k/μL ALC<4 k/μL and LGL<0.5K/μL. PR was defined as Hb>8g/dL, ANC>0.5K/μL, PLT>50k/μL, and no transfusion requirement. Cox proportional hazard mode was used for multivariate survival analysis with all the covariates listed in table 3. Results The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range: 21 - 90 years). 92.1% of pts were diagnosed with T-LGLL and 7.9% with NK-LGLL. At presentation, 50.4% of pts had anemia; 48.4% had neutropenia and 34.6% had thrombocytopenia. 21.7% of pts were transfusion dependent; 20.3% had severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.5K/μL) and 33% had splenomegaly. Preexisting diagnosis of autoimmune disorders was observed in 26.4% of pts (Table 1). The Foundation One Heme NGS assay (Foundation Medicine Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) was employed in 25 pts (www.foundationmedicine.com/genomic-testing/foundation-one-heme). Nine of 25 pts were positive for STAT 3 and none for STAT5 mutations. 54.8% of pts required treatment. Table 2 summarizes the first three lines of therapy. Methotrexate (MTX), cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine A (CSA) were the most commonly used front-line therapies. Overall response (CR + PR) for all 3 agents ranged between 55%-67% with CR rate of 11%-25%. 25% of pts receiving Cytoxan achieved CR and 11.7% on MTX achieved CR however statistical testing was not significant due to the limitation of sample size. Rates of overall response (OS) were not different among the treatment regiments. The rate of 10-year overall survival (OS) was 56.8%. Median OS was 14 years [95% CI (9.7 years, .) (Figure 1). In the multivariate Cox model, increasing age, neutropenia, thrombopenia and coexisting malignancies were independent factors associated with poor survival. Absolute number of LGLL cells in blood was not associated with OS. T-LGLL and NK-LGLL had comparable OS (Table 3). Conclusions This study is one of the largest retrospective single-institutional studies of LGLL. Consistent with prior studies, LGLL demonstrated an indolent course with a long median OS. ORR and CR rates did not significantly differ among cyclophosphamide, MTX and CSA. However, a significant percentage of patients did not respond to the frontline immunosuppressive therapy. Clinical trials with novel therapeutic agents are necessary to further improve outcomes of patients with LGLL. Disclosures Komrokji: Jazz: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria. Sokol:EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa/Kirin Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kymera Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

This essay examines the cultural dimensions of state administrative formation. Revisiting the organization of early U.S. state school administrations in the decades before the Civil War, I emphasize the culturally peculiar vocabularies of universal salvation and motherly care in which early administrators outlined an apparatus of state “designed, like the common blessings of heaven, to encompass all.” Self-consciously distinguishing themselves from a republican governing tradition that depended upon localities to administrate state policy, the Unitarian Horace Mann and his liberal Protestant allies imagined a unified state “like a mother … taking care of all its children.” Drawing from a cultural preoccupation with a motherly and infinitely forgiving God, these Massachusetts state administrators articulated a vision of a department of state government that would directly recognize all persons, and all schools, “within every part of the Commonwealth.” Such words were more than metaphor, though metaphor was crucial to the project. Rather, the organizational logic of the “motherly state” unfolded in the matrices of responsibility and communication, of surveillance and discipline and labor policy that constituted the foundational systems of early comprehensive state administration. By bringing together the insights of institutional development with the methods of cultural history, this essay ultimately suggests that government itself can be understood as a cultural artifact.

Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) is a potentially curative approach for eligible patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The 5-year overall survival (OS) for AML patients (pts) following HCT is approximately 40-50%. However, data regarding outcomes for pts with certain molecular subtypes of AML are lacking. Of particular interest are post-HCT outcomes of pts with targetable mutations such as FLT3, IDH1, or IDH2, given the potential role of maintenance targeted therapy in the post-HCT setting. We conducted a retrospective, multi-institutional study describing outcomes for IDH1- or IDH2-mutated AML pts following HCT. Methods: We performed retrospective data collection, using institutional databases, at three academic sites (Massachusetts General Hospital, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and Ohio State University). We identified pts >18 years of age with a diagnosis of IDH1- or IDH2-mutated AML who underwent allogeneic HCT from 2010 to 2019. Data collected included pt age, sex, mutational and cytogenetic profile, treatment received prior to HCT, marrow response prior to HCT, stem cell source, HCT conditioning regimen, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis, and time of relapse, death, or last known follow-up. IDH mutational status was assessed using next generation sequencing prior to HCT. Time to event endpoints are analyzed using the Kaplan Meier method for OS and progression-free survival (PFS), or the Gray method in a competing risk setting for time to relapse and non-relapse mortality (NRM). Proportional hazard cox models and competing risk regression models were used to test difference between groups while adjusting for other covariates. Results: In total, 117 pts with IDH1- or IDH2-mutated AML who received allogeneic HCT were identified. An IDH1 mutation was identified in 35 patients (pts) while an IDH2 mutation was found in 81 pts (Table 1). One pt had both IDH1 and IDH2 mutations and he was not included in subsequent univariate and multivariate analyses. The most commonly co-occurring mutations among all patients were DNMT3A (35%), NPM1 (32%), FLT3-ITD (14%), ASXL1 (10%), and TP53 (3%). 50 pts (43%) were >65 years old (range 27-74), and 60 (51%) were male. 12 pts (10%) had favorable-risk, 70 pts (60%) had intermediate-risk, and 21 pts (18%) had adverse-risk AML by ELN cytogenetic criteria; data were unavailable for 14 patients (12%). 112 pts (96%) achieved CR/CRi prior to HCT. 76 pts (65%) received reduced intensity and 40 (34%) underwent myeloablative conditioning (Table 1); data were unavailable for 1 patient (0.9%). 36 pts (31%) received an IDH inhibitor before HCT and 3 (2.6%) received an IDH inhibitor as maintenance therapy after HCT. Following HCT, 18 pts (15%) experienced grade 2-4 acute GVHD and 44 (38%) experienced chronic GVHD requiring systemic treatment. With a median follow-up of 23 months for surviving pts, the 1-year PFS and OS for the IDH1-mutated cohort was 74% (95% CI 55%-85%) and 76% (95% CI 58%-87%), respectively, and the 2-year PFS and OS was 55% (95% CI 35%-71%) and 73% (95% CI 55%-85%), respectively (Figure 1). With a median follow-up of 26 months for surviving pts, the 1-year PFS and OS for the IDH2-mutated cohort was 58% (95% CI 47%-68%) and 72% (95% CI 61%-81%), respectively, and the 2-year PFS and OS was 52% (95% CI 40%-63%) and 60% (95% CI 48%-70%), respectively (Figure 1). The 2-year cumulative incidence of relapse and NRM was 36.1% (95% CI 19.0%-53.6%) and 9.1% (95% CI 2.2%-22.0%), respectively, for the IDH1-mutated cohort, and 29.8% (95% CI 19.9%-40.4%) and 18.0% (95% CI 10.3%-27.3%), respectively, for the IDH2-mutated cohort. On multivariate analysis of OS, there was no statistically significant association with older age, higher-risk disease, absence of pre-HCT CR/CRi, use of reduced intensity conditioning, or IDH mutation. Conclusion: This is the first multi-institutional retrospective study to characterize outcomes of IDH1- or IDH2-mutated AML patients undergoing allogeneic HCT. We report important benchmarks of relapse, disease-free, and overall survival that will inform interpretation of ongoing and future clinical trials investigating the benefit of maintenance IDH1 and IDH2 inhibitor therapy in the post-HCT setting. Disclosures Eisfeld: Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Vigeo Therapeutics: Consultancy. Mims:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other: Senior Medical Director for Beat AML Study; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Syndax Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jones:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Patents & Royalties: and other intellectual property, Research Funding. Cutler:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kadmon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medsenic: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Generon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Koreth:Amgen: Consultancy; Moderna Therapeutics: Consultancy; Biolojic Design Inc: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Equillium: Consultancy; Clinigen: Other; Miltenyi: Other: Research Support; BMS: Other: Research Support; Cugene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Therakos: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Other: Research Support. Defilipp:Incyte: Research Funding; Regimmune: Research Funding; Syndax Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Soiffer:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rheos Therapeutics: Consultancy; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Consultancy; Be the Match/ National Marrow Donor Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy; Cugene: Consultancy; Precision Bioscience: Consultancy; Kiadis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; VOR Biopharma: Consultancy; Mana Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Chen:AbbVie: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board Member; Equillium: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board Member; Takeda: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy; Actinium: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board Member. Fathi:PTC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Consultancy; Forty Seven: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amphivena: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Blueprint: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Newlink Genetics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract A global push exists to bolster the connections between research and practice in education. However, fostering evidence-informed practice (EIP) has proven challenging. Indeed, this ‘problem’ requires simultaneously attending to multiple aspects/levels of education systems, and to the contexts within which they reside. As such, comparative analyses using systems approaches hold potential for achieving context-specific insights regarding how to foster EIP. However, such analyses have been scarce, and what research does exist has generally been limited relative to methods and theory. Given this, the present study executes and describes/reflects upon a novel approach for analysing and comparing EIP in/across systems. In this study, educators’ evidence use patterns are described and comparatively analysed, using a sample of four regions within high-income national settings: Catalonia (Spain), England (UK), Massachusetts (USA), and Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany). This study employs a dual analytical frame (a cohesion/regulation matrix and institutional theory) to supply a methodological lens through which to understand EIP within and across these four systems. Together, this approach not only provides a way of accounting for the macro-level differences between contexts, it also enables a comparison of meso-level and micro-level factors (via institutional theory) that might be common and distinct across systems. This study’s findings reveal substantial diversity in the extent and nature of evidence use between systems, which in turn patterned according to distinctive cultural, systemic, and institutional features. Considering these findings, this study’s discussion advances some provisional insights and reflections regarding actual and potential EIP in education. For example, variability relative to the types/extents of accountability pressures, and how this affected educators’ data and evidence use, enabled a discussion holding relevance for policymakers. We also share process-related insights—i.e., describing the advances and challenges we experienced while undertaking this new approach. These points hold relevance for colleagues wishing to emulate and improve upon the efforts described herein, which we argue are applicable both in and beyond the education sector. Relative to education, these approaches can be applied and improved with an eye toward developing context-specific (vs. one-size-fits-all) packages for fostering EIP and, ultimately, achieving high quality and progressively improving schools/systems.

During the first few decades of the nineteenth century, advocates of an independent court system staffed by law-trained judges with law-declaring powers in the common law tradition launched a multi-front campaign against popular constitutionalism. They wrote judicial opinions, legal treatises, and popular articles; compiled law reports; and founded law schools. Prominent figures included Judge Jeremiah Smith (New Hampshire); Professor and Chancellor James Kent (New York); Professor and Justice Joseph Story, Isaac Parker, Theodore Sedgwick, and Theophilus Parsons (Massachusetts); Jesse Root and Judge Zepaniah Swift (Connecticut); George Wythe and Edmund Pendleton (Virginia); William Gaston and Thomas Ruffin (North Carolina); George Nicholas and John Breckinridge (Kentucky); Thomas McKean and Alexander Dallas (Pennsylvania); and Henry William Desaussure (South Carolina). Key judicial rulings included Symsbury Case (Connecticut); Merrill v. Sherburne (New Hampshire); and Goddard v. Goddard (Massachusetts). Benefitting from converging contemporary political, social, and economic forces, as well as the rise of judicial elections, the campaign succeeded. The judiciary solidified its institutional independence from the legislature and established its power to adjudicate the legality of decisions made by the other branches. Yet this accomplishment came at a cost: juries lost autonomy inside the judicial structure, and their power was weakened permanently.

Harvard and M.I.T. were ideally positioned to exploit the advantageous possibilities for development that arose after World War II. Both did so, pursuing routes that reflected their different histories, stages of development, organizational characteristics, and current priorities. Both became, in the process, contrasting versions of a modern research university, together helping to define a new institutional model for the nation’s academic community. For most universities, World War II continued the difficult circumstances of the Depression, but the wartime role of academics also fostered hopes for recognition and growth in the postwar years. This optimism prompted organized planning for institutional development well before the end of the war. As Conant put it in 1943: “The period immediately following the cessation of hostilities ... will be a time when [Harvard’s] educational house can be put in order, when changes perhaps long overdue can be made most readily.” The leaders of M.I.T. anticipated even more dramatic gains. Referring in 1944 to the Institute’s contributions to the war effort, Compton observed that “the value, effectiveness and prestige of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have never been at so high a level; this is certainly a strategic vantage point from which to initiate the next advance.” The prewar years at Harvard had left little doubt about the “changes ... long overdue” on which Conant would focus. From the beginning of his presidency, he had insisted that Harvard’s goal should not be expansion but “intensification”: the raising of intellectual standards within established programs and the reducing of concern with the social, localistic values associated with Harvard’s Brahmin traditions. The two major expressions of these policies prior to 1940 had been the efforts to tighten scholarly standards for promotion in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and to attract more able undergraduates by recruiting in public and non-northeastern secondary schools. As Conant anticipated the postwar years, especially in the context of the veterans’ program, he was aware that the new popularity of higher education might support a level of growth that had not been possible during the Depression, but he continued to oppose expansion. If demand for admission increased, Conant argued in the mid-1940S, Harvard should raise standards, not increase in size.