ARTIVATE: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, Volume 1 Number 1 -- Table of Contents: 

“Artivate Volume 1, Number 1: Table of Contents” p. i. 

“Arts Entrepreneurship” by Gary D. Beckman and Linda Essig, p. 1-8.

“What’s in a Name?: Typifying Artist Entrepreneurship in Community Based Training” by Paul Bonin-Rodriguez, p. 9-24.

“The Case of the Pittsburgh New Music Ensemble: An Illustration of Entrepreneurial Theory in an Artistic Setting” by Jeffrey Nytch, p. 25-34.

“Shattering the Myth of the Passive Spectator: Entrepreneurial Efforts to Define and Enhance Participation in ‘Non-Participatory’ Arts” by Clayton Lord, p. 35-49.

ARTIVATE: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, Volume 1 Number 2 -- Table of Contents:

“Editor’s Introduction” by Gary D. Beckman, p. 1.

“Artivate Volume 1, Number 2: Table of Contents” p. 51. 

“Infusing Entrepreneurship Within Non-Business Disciplines: Preparing Artists and Others for Self-Employment and Entrepreneurship” by Joseph S. Roberts, p. 53-63.

“Frameworks for Educating the Artist of the Future: Teaching Habits of the Mind for Arts Entrepreneurship” by Linda Essig, p. 65-77.

“Dostoevsky’s ‘The Grand Inquisitor’: Adding an Ethical Component to the Teaching of Non-Market Entrepreneurship” by Gordon E. Shockley and Peter M. Frank, p. 79-91

ARTIVATE: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, Volume 2 Number 3 -- Table of Contents:

“Artivate Volume 2 Number 3: Table of Contents”

“Editors’ Introduction” Linda Essig and Gary D. Beckman, p. 1-2.

“Situated Cultural Entrepreneurship” by Johan Kolsteeg, p. 3-13.

“Culture Coin: A Commons-Based, Complementary Currency for the Arts and its Impact on Scarcity, Virtue, Ethics, and the Imagination” by Vijay Mathew and Polly Carl, p. 14-29.

“Barriers to Recognizing Arts Entrepreneurship Education as Essential to Professional Arts Training” by Jason C. White, p. 28-39.

Book Review: 

The Culture of Possibility: Art, Artists, & the Future by Arlene Goldbard” reviewed by Stephani Etheridge Woodson, p. 40-42

ARTIVATE: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, Volume 3 Number 1 -- Table of Contents:

“Artivate Volume 3 Number 1: Table of Contents” 

“Editors’ Introduction” by Gary Beckman and Linda Essig, p. 1-2.

“The ‘Entrepreneurial Mindset’ in Creative and Performing Arts Higher Education in Australia” by Vikki Pollard and Emily Wilson, p. 3-22.

“Social Bricolage in Arts Entrepreneurship: Building a Jazz Society from Scratch” by Stephen B. Preece, p. 23-34.

“Placemaking and Social Equity: Expanding the Framework of Creative Placemaking” by Debra Webb, p. 35-48.

Book Reviews:

“Creativity and Entrepreneurship: Changing Currents in Education and Public Life” edited by Lynn Book and David Peter Phillips, reviewed by Susan Badger Booth, p. 49-50. 

“Creative Communities: Art Works in Economic Development” edited by Michael Rushton with a foreword by Rocco Landesman, reviewed by Mark A. Hager, p. 51-53.

ARTIVATE: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, Volume 3 Number 2 -- Table of Contents:

“Editor's Introduction to Volume 3, Number 2” by Linda Essig and Joseph Roberts, p. 1-2. 

“How Is Damien Hirst a Cultural Entrepreneur?” by Marisa Enhuber, p. 3-20. 

“Responding to the Needs and Challenges of Arts Entrepreneurs: An Exploratory Study of Arts Entrepreneurship in North Carolina Higher Education” by Dianne H.B. Welsh, Tamaki Onishi, Ruth H. DeHoog, and Sumera Syed, p. 21-37.

“Daily Blogging for a Year: A "Lean" Pathway to Launching a Web-based Business” by Julia Griffey, p. 39-50.

Book Review:

“Social Intrapreneurism and All That Jazz: How Business Innovators are Helping to Build a More Sustainable World” by David Grayson, Melody McLaren, and Heiko Spitzeck, Foreword by John Elkington, p. 51-53

ARTIVATE: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, Volume 4 Number 1 -- Table of Contents:

“Artivate Volume 4 Number 1: Table of Contents” 

“Editor’s Introduction” by Joseph Roberts, p.1.

“Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship Part 1” by Andrew Taylor, Paul Bonin-Rodriguez, and Linda Essig, p. 3-7.

“Creativities, Innovation, And Networks In Garage Punk Rock: A Case Study Of The Eruptörs” by Gareth Dylan Smith and Alex Gillett, p. 9-24.

“Creative Toronto: Harnessing The Economic Development Power Of Arts & Culture” by Shoshanah B.D. Goldberg-Miller, p. 25-48.

Book Review:

“Performing Policy: How Contemporary Politics and Cultural Programs Redefined U.S. Artists for the Twenty-First Century (Palgrave)” by Paul Bonin-Rodriguez, review by Neville Vakharia, p. 49-52.

The recent battle reported from Washington about proposed national testing program does not tell the most important political story about high stakes tests. Politically popular school accountability systems in many states already revolve around statistical results of testing with high-stakes environments. The future of high stakes tests thus does not depend on what happens on Capitol Hill. Rather, the existence of tests depends largely on the political culture of published test results. Most critics of high-stakes testing do not talk about that culture, however. They typically focus on the practice legacy of testing, the ways in which testing creates perverse incentives against good teaching.

More important may be the political legacy, or how testing defines legitimate discussion about school politics. The consequence of statistical accountability systems will be the narrowing of purpose for schools, impatience with reform, and the continuing erosion of political support for publicly funded schools. Dissent from the high-stakes accountability regime that has developed around standardized testing, including proposals for professionalism and performance assessment, commonly fails to consider these political legacies. Alternatives to standardized testing which do not also connect schooling with the public at large will not be politically viable.

This paper presents a Bayesian framework for evaluative classification. Current education policy debates center on arguments about whether and how to use student test score data in school and personnel evaluation. Proponents of such use argue that refusing to use data violates both the public’s need to hold schools accountable when they use taxpayer dollars and students’ right to educational opportunities. Opponents of formulaic use of test-score data argue that most standardized test data is susceptible to fatal technical flaws, is a partial picture of student achievement, and leads to behavior that corrupts the measures.

A Bayesian perspective on summative ordinal classification is a possible framework for combining quantitative outcome data for students with the qualitative types of evaluation that critics of high-stakes testing advocate. This paper describes the key characteristics of a Bayesian perspective on classification, describes a method to translate a naïve Bayesian classifier into a point-based system for evaluation, and draws conclusions from the comparison on the construction of algorithmic (including point-based) systems that could capture the political and practical benefits of a Bayesian approach. The most important practical conclusion is that point-based systems with fixed components and weights cannot capture the dynamic and political benefits of a reciprocal relationship between professional judgment and quantitative student outcome data.

The spread of academic testing for accountability purposes in multiple countries has obscured at least two historical purposes of academic testing: community ritual and management of the social structure. Testing for accountability is very different from the purpose of academic challenges one can identify in community “examinations” in 19th century North America, or exams’ controlling access to the civil service in Imperial China. Rather than testing for ritual or access to mobility, the modern uses of testing are much closer to the state-building project of a tax census, such as the Domesday Book of medieval Britain after the Norman Invasion, the social engineering projects described in James Scott's Seeing like a State (1998), or the “mapping the world” project that David Nye described in America as Second Creation (2004). This paper will explore both the instrumental and cultural differences among testing as ritual, testing as mobility control, and testing as state-building.