text:
Race to the Top
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Education in the United States
By state and in insular areas
By subject area
History of
Issues: Finance – Law – Literacy – Reform
Levels: Primary – Secondary – Higher
Organizations
Education portal
United States portal
v
t
e
Race to the Top, abbreviated R2T, RTTT or RTT[1], is a $4.35 billion United States Department of Education competitive grant created to spur and reward innovation and reforms in state and local district K-12 education. It is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and was announced by President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on July 25, 2009. States were awarded points for satisfying certain educational policies, such as performance-based evaluations for teachers and principals based on multiple measures of educator effectiveness (and are tied to targeted professional development and feedback), adopting common standards (though adoption of the Common Core State Standards was not required), adoption of policies that do not prohibit (or effectively prohibit) the expansion of high-quality charter schools, turning around the lowest-performing schools, and building and using data systems.
Contents
[hide]
1 Criteria for funding
2 Effects
3 Timetable
4 Awards
5 Results
6 Criticisms
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links
Criteria for funding[edit]
State applications for funding were scored on selection criteria worth a total of 500 points. In order of weight, the selection criteria were:[2]
Great Teachers and Leaders (138 total points)
Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points)
Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals (25 points)
Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points)
Providing effective support to teachers and principals (20 points)
Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs (14 points)
State Success Factors (125 total points)
Articulating State's education reform agenda and LEAs' participation in it (65 points)
Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain proposed plans (30 points)
Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps (30 points)
Standards and Assessments (70 total points)
Developing and adopting common standards (40 points)
Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments (20 points)
Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments (10 points)
General Selection Criteria (55 total points)
Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charters and other innovative schools (40 points)
Making education funding a priority (10 points)
Demonstrating other significant reform conditions (5 points)
Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools (50 total points)
Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (40 points)
Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs (10 points)
Data Systems to Support Instruction (47 total points)
Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system (24 points)
Using data to improve instruction (18 points)
Accessing and using State data (5 points)
In addition to the 485 possible points from the selection criteria above, applicants were assessed based on six priorities, including the prioritization of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education which is worth another fifteen points for a possible total of 500.[2]
Priority 1, Absolute Priority: Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform
Priority 2, Competitive Preference Priority: Emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) (This priority was worth 15 points, bringing the "selection criteria" total to 500 points)
Priority 3, Invitational Priority: Innovations for Improving Early Learning Outcomes
Priority 4, Invitational Priority: Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems
Priority 5, Invitational Priority: P-20 Coordination, Vertical and Horizontal Alignment
Priority 6, Invitational Priority: School-Level Conditions for Reform, Innovation, and Learning
The applications for Race to the Top were bolstered by local involvement: states were incentivized to get buy-in from school district superintendents and teacher unions; applications required signatures from the states' education chiefs, governors, and attorneys general in order to qualify.[2]
Effects[edit]
Several states changed their education policies to make their applications more competitive. For instance, Illinois increased the cap on the number of charter schools it allows from 60 to 120; Massachusetts passed legislation to "aggressively intervene in [its] lowest-performing schools", and West Virginia proposed, but did not establish, a performance-based salary system that would have included student achievement in its compensation calculations.[3][4] In order to be eligible, states couldn't have laws prohibiting the use of measures of student achievement growth in teacher evaluations. Some states had banned the use of value-added modeling in evaluations, but changed their laws to be eligible.[5]
Race to the Top is one contributing factor to 48 states that have adopted common standards for K-12.[6] Adoption was accelerated by the August 1, 2010 deadline for adopting common standards, after which states would not receive points toward round 2 applications. In addition, the White House announced a $350 million federal grant funding the development of assessments aligned to the common standards.[7][8] The Common Core State Standards, one set of standards adopted by states for Race to the Top, were developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers with funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and others.[9] Adoption of the Common Core State Standards, however, was not required by Race to the Top.
Timetable[edit]
Phase 1 applications for funding were due on January 19, 2010. 40 states applied for funding, as did the District of Columbia. Phase 1 finalists were announced on March 4, 2010, and phase 1 winners were announced on March 29, 2010.[10][11] The deadline for submitting Phase 2 applications was June 1; Phase 2 decisions were announced on August 24, 2010.[12] Phase 3 applications were split into two parts. Part I was due November 22, 2011 and Part II was due December 16. Awards were announced on December 23. Winners of Phase 3 included: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.[13] Only Phase 2 finalists who did not earn money were eligible.[14] Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge, jointly conducted by the Department of Education and the United States Department of Health and Human Services, applications were due October 20. On April 9, 2012 the Department of Education announced there would be a second round of the Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge. The five states that were close to winning in the first round (CO, IL, NM, OR, WI) would compete for $133 million.[15] On May 22, 2012, the Department of Education proposed draft criteria for a district-level Race to the Top program. On December 19, 2013, six additional states (Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Vermont) were awarded a total of $280 million from the 2013 Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) fund.[16]
Awards[edit]
States were eligible for different funding award brackets depending on their share of the federal population of children between the ages of 5-17. Phase 1 award bands ranged from $20–75 million up to the highest phase 1 award range of $350–$700 million. Only the four largest states, by population, (California, Texas, Florida, and New York) were eligible for this highest bracket. Over three rounds, 18 states plus the District of Columbia were awarded grants totaling $4.1 billion (not including RTTT-Early Learning Challenge grants). These awardees in aggregate serve approximately 22 million students making up approximately 45% of the all K-12 students in the United States.[17]
Race to the Top Results[18][19][20]
State
Round 1 Score (Place)
Round 1 Result
Round 2 Score (Place)
Round 2 Result
Round 3 Score
Round 3 Result
Alabama
291.2 (37th) - 212.0 (36th) - - -
Arizona
240.2 (40th) - 435.4 (12th) Finalist - Awarded $25 million
Arkansas
394.4 (17th) - 389.2 (21st) -
California
336.8 (27th) - 423.6 (16th) Finalist
Colorado
409.6 (14th) Finalist 420.2 (17th) Finalist - Awarded $18 million
Connecticut
344.6 (25th) - 379.0 (25th) -
Delaware
454.6 (1st) Awarded $100 million - -
District of Columbia
402.4 (16th) Finalist 450.0 (6th) Awarded $75 million
Florida
431.4 (4th) Finalist 452.4 (4th) Awarded $700 million
Georgia
433.6 (3rd) Finalist 446.4 (8th) Awarded $400 million
Hawaii
364.6 (22nd) - 462.4 (3rd) Awarded $75 million
Idaho
331.0 (28th) - Did Not Submit -
Illinois
423.8 (5th) Finalist 426.6 (15th) Finalist - Awarded $43 million
Indiana
355.6 (23rd) - Did Not Submit -
Iowa
346.0 (24th) - 382.8 (22nd) -
Kansas
329.6 (29th) - Did Not Submit -
Kentucky
418.8 (9th) Finalist 412.4 (19th) Finalist - Awarded $17 million
Louisiana
418.2 (11th) Finalist 434.0 (13th) Finalist - Awarded $17 million
Maine
Did Not Submit - 283.4 (33rd) -
Maryland
Did Not Submit - 450.0 (6th) Awarded $250 million
Massachusetts
411.4 (13th) Finalist 471.0 (1st) Awarded $250 million
Michigan
366.2 (21st) - 381.6 (23rd) -
Minnesota
375.0 (20th) - Did Not Submit -
Mississippi
Did Not Submit - 263.4 (34th) -
Missouri
301.4 (33rd) - 316.4 (30th) -
Montana
Did Not Submit - 238.4 (35th) -
Nebraska
247.4 (39th) - 295.8 (31st) -
Nevada
Did Not Submit - 381.2 (24th) -
New Hampshire
271.2 (38th) - 335.2 (29th) -
New Jersey
387.0 (18th) - 437.8 (11th) Finalist - Awarded $38 million
New Mexico
325.2 (30th) - 366.2 (28th) -
New York
408.6 (15th) Finalist 464.8 (2nd) Awarded $700 million
North Carolina
414.0 (12th) Finalist 441.6 (9th) Awarded $400 million
Ohio
418.6 (10th) Finalist 440.8 (10th) Awarded $400 million
Oklahoma
294.6 (34th) - 391.8 (20th) -
Oregon
292.6 (35th) - Did Not Submit -
Pennsylvania
420.0 (7th) Finalist 417.6 (18th) Finalist - Awarded $41 million
Rhode Island
419.0 (8th) Finalist 451.2 (5th) Awarded $75 million
South Carolina
423.2 (6th) Finalist 431.0 (14th) Finalist
South Dakota
135.8 (41st) - Did Not Submit -
Tennessee
444.2 (2nd) Awarded $500 million - -
Utah
379.4 (19th) - 379.0 (25th) -
Vermont
- -
Virginia
324.8 (31st) - Did Not Submit -
Washington
Did Not Submit - 290.6 (32nd) -
West Virginia
292.4 (36th) - Did Not Submit -
Wisconsin
341.2 (26th) - 368.4 (27th) -
Wyoming
318.6 (32nd) - Did Not Submit -
Alaska, North Dakota, Texas, and Vermont did not submit Race to the Top applications for either round.
After both rounds, the Department of Education released the complete scoring of each application, with the intention of making the scoring process more transparent and helping states revise their applications to be more competitive for the second round of competition.
Round 1 (a.k.a. Phase 1) Winners were announced on March 29, 2010.[21] Round 2 (a.k.a. Phase 2) Winners were announced on August 24, 2010.[22] Round 3 (a.k.a. Phase 3) Winners were announced on December 23, 2011.[23]
Results[edit]
As a part of Race to the Top, the U.S. Department of Education puts out an Annual Performance Report (APR), cataloguing the grantees' progress in implementing reform plans and meeting goals for student outcomes.[24]
APR's are created for each state to document the progress toward the annual and four-year targets set forth in the grantees' applications. Because the performance measures included in the applications are indicators of success in improving student outcomes, the APR is one way to hold states accountable for meeting targets in improving student outcomes. An APR also includes reports and updates on laws, statutes, regulations, and/or guidelines that impact reform plans, as well as progress in meeting the "absolute priority" and "competitive preference priority", which emphasize a comprehensive focus on reform and an emphasis on STEM education. The APR includes updates on progress in meeting the invitation priorities in the approved plans (innovations for improving early learning outcomes; expansion and adaptation of statewide longitudinal data systems; P-20 coordination, vertical and horizontal alignment; and school-level conditions for reform, innovation, and learning).[25]
The APR measures things like graduating rates. Graduation rates for the states that received grants (grants were awarded in 2010 and late 2011):
Graduation Rates for Grant Winning States[26]
State 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Delaware 87.0% 78.0% 80.0% 80.4% 87.0% 85.6%
Washington DC 76.0% 59.0% 59.0% 62.3% 61.4% 68.5%
Florida 78.0% 71.0% 75.0% 75.6% 76.1% 77.9%
Georgia 81.0% 67.0% 70.0% 71.7% 72.5% 78.8%
Maryland 87.0% 83.0% 84.0% 85.0% 86.4% 87.0%
Massachusetts 82.0% 83.0% 85.0% 85.0% 86.1% 87.3%
New York 76.0% 77.0% 77.0% 76.8% 77.8% 79.2%
North Carolina 74.0% 78.0% 80.0% 82.5% 83.9% 85.6%
Ohio 84.0% 80.0% 81.0% 82.2% 81.8% 80.7%
Rhode Island 76.0% 77.0% 77.0% 79.7% 80.8% 83.2%
Tennessee 89.0% 86.0% 87.0% 86.3% 87.2% 87.9%
Race to the Top states like Georgia, North Carolina and Florida successfully integrated multiple data systems to provide a range of tailored resources and information for different audiences (e.g., teachers, students, parents). In such integrated systems, students can access their assignments, grades and learning activities; parents can view the academic expectations of their child, and his or her school attendance and grades; and teachers and principals can access their students’ data and find strategies and resources (e.g., sample lesson plans) to meet their instructional needs. Access to data and training that help teachers improve instruction to meet their students’ needs.[27]
Race to the Top states provided extensive training opportunities for teachers to increase their data analysis skills and use student performance data to customize learning for individual students. Teachers are using new data and tools to effectively and quickly check on students’ progress and understanding in the course of a single session or over a few weeks.
Criticisms[edit]
Although the vast majority of states have competed to win the grants, Race to the Top has also been criticized by politicians, policy analysts, thought leaders, and educators. Teachers' unions argued that state tests are an inaccurate way to measure teacher effectiveness, despite the fact that learning gains on assessments is only one component of the evaluation systems. Conservatives complained that it imposes federal overreach on state schools, and others argued that charter schools weaken public education.[28] In explaining why Texas would not be applying for Race to the Top funding, then Governor Rick Perry stated, "we would be foolish and irresponsible to place our children's future in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and special interest groups thousands of miles away in Washington."[29]
Critics further contend that the reforms being promoted are unproven or have been unsuccessful in the past. Former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch, for example, commented that empirical evidence "shows clearly that choice, competition and accountability as education reform levers are not working".[30] In her argument, Ravitch did not specify the "empirical evidence" she referenced. A coalition of civil rights organizations, including the Urban League, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition released a statement that "Such an approach reinstates the antiquated and highly politicized frame for distributing federal support to states that civil rights organizations fought to remove in 1965."[31][32] The Economic Policy Institute released a report in April 2010 finding that "the selection of Delaware and Tennessee was subjective and arbitrary, more a matter of bias or chance than a result of these states' superior compliance with reform policies".[33] Finally, the American Enterprise Institute released a report in September 2010 finding disparities in Race to the Top scores versus the education reform track records and ratings of states from outside, independent sources. This report finds that states' political circumstances may have influenced states' final scores.[34]
On May 26, 2010, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell withdrew the state from the second round of the competition. Virginia finished 31st out of 41 states in the first round, but McDonnell said that Virginia would not continue for the second round, believing the competition required the use of common education performance standards instead of Virginia's current standards. The use of common performance standards is required.[35][36] Although McDonnell supported the Race to the Top program during his campaign for governor,[37] he claimed on his June 1 appearance on MSNBC that the Race to the Top rules precluded participating states from adopting more rigorous standards in addition to whatever multi-state standards they join.[38][39] However, in some cases, "Race to the Top" regulations award the points even if states adopt standards more rigorous than the optional, common standards.[40]
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "Race to the Top Fund". www2.ed.gov. 2016-07-19. Retrieved 2017-10-21.
^ Jump up to: a b c "Race to the Top Program Executive Summary" (PDF). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 26, 2010.
Jump up ^ "Race to the Top Program: States' Applications for Phase 2". U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Vermont sits out first round in Race to the Top competition". Burlington Free Press. Retrieved February 1, 2010. [dead link]
Jump up ^ Dillon, Sam. "Method to Grade Teachers Provokes Battles", The New York Times, August 31, 2010. Accessed September 1, 2010.
Jump up ^ "Virginia's stance against national standards is a blow for students". Washington Post. June 5, 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-15.
Jump up ^ "Higher Standards, Better Tests, Race to the Top". U.S. Dept. of Education. June 15, 2009. Retrieved 2010-06-24.
Jump up ^ "Race to the Top Assessment Program". U.S. Dept. of Education. June 24, 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-24.
Jump up ^ Anderson, Nick (March 10, 2010). "Common set of school standards to be proposed". Washington Post. p. A1. Missing or empty |url= (help)
Jump up ^ King Jr, Neil; Martinez, Barbara (March 5, 2010). "Race to the Top Finalists Are Named". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 8, 2010.
Jump up ^ "Tennessee, Delaware schools to get Race to the Top funds". CNN. March 30, 2010. Retrieved March 29, 2010.
Jump up ^ "Nine States and the District of Columbia Win Second Round Race to the Top Grants". US Dept. of Education. August 24, 2010. Retrieved July 10, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Department of Education Awards $200 Million to Seven States to Advance K-12 Reform". US Dept. of Education. December 23, 2011.
Jump up ^ U.S. Department of Education (2011-11-16). "Phase 3 Overview Webinar" (PDF). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 2011-11-26.
Jump up ^ "New $133 Million Available for Race to Top Early Learning Grants". Education Week. April 9, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Six States Awarded Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) Grants to Build Statewide Systems of High-Quality Early Learning". December 19, 2013.
Jump up ^ "A Report on Race to the Top in Its Fourth Year" (PDF). The White House.
Jump up ^ "Race to the Top Phase 1 Final Results" (PDF). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 30, 2010.
Jump up ^ "Race to the Top Phase 2 Final Results" (PDF). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved December 24, 2010.
Jump up ^ "Race to the Top Phase 3 Final Results". U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 6, 2014.
Jump up ^ U.S. Dept of Education (2010-03-29). "Delaware and Tennessee Win First Race to The Top Grants".
Jump up ^ U.S. Dept of Education (2010-08-24). "Nine States and the District of Columbia Win Second Round Race to the Top Grants".
Jump up ^ U.S. Dept of Education (2011-12-23). "Department of Education Awards $200 Million to Seven States to Advance K-12 Reform".
Jump up ^ "Race to the Top: About the APR". U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report". U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
Jump up ^ "ED Data Express". eddataexpress.ed.gov. Retrieved 2017-10-22.
Jump up ^ "Fundamental Change Innovation in America's Schools Under Race to the Top" (PDF). ed.gov. Retrieved 2017-10-22.
Jump up ^ "Obama offers 'Race to the Top' contest for schools". The Guardian. London. January 23, 2008. Retrieved January 26, 2010.
Jump up ^ "Press Releases - Gov. Perry: Texas Knows Best How to Educate Our Students, Texas will not apply for Federal Race to the Top Funding". Office of Governor Rick Perry. Retrieved February 1, 2010.
Jump up ^ Ravitch, Diane (March 14, 2010). "The Big Idea -- it's bad education policy". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 23, 2010.
Jump up ^ Darby, Seyward, Defending Obama's Education Plan New Republic
Jump up ^ McNeil, Michelle, Civil Rights Groups Call for New Federal Education Agenda, Education Week
Jump up ^ "LET'S DO THE NUMBERS: Department of Education's "Race to the Top" Program Offers Only a Muddled Path to the Finish Line" (PDF). Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved April 23, 2010.
Jump up ^ Bowen, Daniel. "Politics and the Scoring of Race to the Top Applications" (PDF). American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved 23 September 2012.
Jump up ^ Nick Anderson and Rosalind Helderman (May 27, 2010). "Virginia Withdraws from Obama's Race to the Top". Washington Post. p. B4.
Jump up ^ "Race to the Top Program Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions" (PDF). US Department of Education. May 27, 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-11. Race to the Top does not endorse any particular consortium or set of standards. Criterion (B)(1) specifies characteristics of consortia and standards that earn States points under this criterion.
Jump up ^ Kumar, Anita (June 1, 2010). "McDonnell on MSNBC: Race to the Top too burdensome". Washington Post.
Jump up ^ Garofalo, Pat (June 1, 2010). "McDonnell Falsely Claims That Race To The Top Would Force Virginia To Lower Its Academic Standards". Retrieved 2010-06-11.
Jump up ^ "McDonnell on MSNBC: Race to the Top would bring "burdensome" federal standards". Retrieved 2010-06-11.
Jump up ^ "Overview Information: Race to the Top Fund". Federal Register. November 18, 2009. Retrieved 2010-06-11. A State may supplement the common standards with additional standards, provided that the additional standards do not exceed 15 percent of the State's total standards for that content area.
Further reading[edit]
Official Race to the Top Fund Website
Obama offers 'Race to the Top' contest for schools
Race to the Top Program Executive Summary
Common Core State Standards Initiative
External links[edit]
Look up race to the top in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_to_the_Top&oldid=808021637"
Categories:
United States federal education legislation
Hidden categories:
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from October 2010
Pages using web citations with no URL
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 31 October 2017, at 12:03.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

values: Category:Education in the United States by state

values: Category:Education in insular areas of the United States

values: Category:Education in the United States by subject

values: History of education in the United States

values: Category:Education finance in the United States

values: Secondary education in the United States

values: Category:Educational organizations based in the United States

values: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top:#aaa 1px solid; border-bottom:#aaa 1px solid;

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values:
/wiki/Common_Core
mw-redirect
Common Core

values:
/wiki/Charter_schools
mw-redirect
Charter schools

values:
/wiki/Local_education_agency
mw-redirect
Local education agency

values:
/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards
mw-redirect
Common Core State Standards

values:
/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
mw-redirect
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

values:
headerSort
0
columnheader button
Sort ascending

values:
wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter
text-align: center;

values:
/wiki/Urban_League
mw-redirect
Urban League

values:
/wiki/NAACP_Legal_Defense_Fund
mw-redirect
NAACP Legal Defense Fund

values:
/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Education
mw-redirect
U.S. Department of Education

values:
/wiki/Burlington_Free_Press
mw-redirect
Burlington Free Press

values:
/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal
mw-redirect
Wall Street Journal

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.rtt-apr.us/about-apr

values:
nofollow
https://eddataexpress.ed.gov/
external text

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
http://www.corestandards.org/
external text

values: Category:United States federal education legislation

values: Category:All articles with dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from October 2010

values: Category:Pages using web citations with no URL

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Race_to_the_Top
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Race_to_the_Top rootpage-Race_to_the_Top skin-vector action-view


text:
Merrill Edge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Merrill Edge
Type
Division
Industry
Financial services
Founded
June 21, 2010
Area served
United States
Key people
Aron Levine
Products
Discount brokerage
Number of employees
2,500
Parent
Bank of America
Website
https://www.merrilledge.com/
Merrill Edge is an online discount brokerage service provided by Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Launched on June 21, 2010, Merrill Edge is a part of Bank of America's retail banking division.
Merrill Edge was created to merge Bank of America Online Investing (Quick & Reilly) and Merrill Lynch's research, investment tools, and call center counsel. When it was established, Merrill Edge had 500,000 Bank of America customers. The firm focuses on investors with between $0 and $250,000 in investable assets. In 2015, the service held $118 billion from two million customers and employed 2,500 advisers working in bank branches and call centers.
Contents
[hide]
1 History
2 Referrals
3 Products
4 Reception
5 References
6 External links
History[edit]
Launched on June 21, 2010,[1] Merrill Edge is a "a no-frills brokerage unit" of parent company Bank of America's retail banking division.[2] Created after Merrill Lynch became a subsidiary of Bank of America in 2008, it contains the Merrill Lynch name and its employees are included in Merrill Lynch's number of employees.[3] It merged Bank of America Online Investing (Quick & Reilly) and Merrill Lynch's research, investment tools, and call center counsel.[4][5] At its inception, Merrill Edge had 500,000 customers from Bank of America's current clients.[4] Bank of America launched the product to compete with Charles Schwab Corporation and Fidelity Investments for the numerous fledgling investors unprepared for comprehensive advice.[6] Bank of America aimed to build brand loyalty among these younger investors who generally have strong technological skills and appreciate a higher degree of openness and personal oversight of their accounts.[4] It is intended for well-educated clients who want to invest between $100,000 and $250,000.[6] Other Merrill Edge competitors are cheap automated Internet advising services like Wealthfront or Personal Capital.[3]
In 2015, the five-year-old Merrill Edge had $118 billion in 2 million customers' investable assets.[7][8] It accumulated the assets through three main avenues: existing Bank of America customers (which accounted for around a third of the assets held), Merrill Lynch referrals (which accounted for a marginally higher proportion of the assets), and marketing (which accounted for the rest).[7][9] Bank of America added videoconferencing kiosks to their bank branches in the Los Angeles metropolitan area and the Washington metropolitan area to promote Merrill Edge and to allow customers to receive counsel from employees based in Arizona, Florida, and New Jersey. Bank of America marketed Merrill Edge on their locations' windows and automated teller machines.[10] The service allows customers three options for doing trades: making the trades themselves, handing over for every order a $6.95 fee, and paying a fee of 1% of the capital for a separately managed account.[7]
In 2015, Merrill Edge had 2,500 advisers working in bank branches and call centers. Roughly 1,500 of the advisers worked in the bank branches. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2015 that Bank of America intends to increase by twofold Merrill Edge's banking branch employee number.[7] According to Reuters, the service's "financial solution advisers" are "licensed broker-dealers and bankers who are paid a salary", whereas full-service brokers receive commissions.[5] Aron Levine, the head of Preferred Banking and Merrill Edge, manages the bank branch advisers.[11]
Referrals[edit]
Merrill Lynch brokers were told to refer customers with less than $250,000 in investments to Merrill Edge.[9] The intent was for the brokers to focus on wealthier investors and for Merrill Edge to reciprocate by sending customer with more than $250,000 in investments to Merrill Lynch.[9] In 2015, the Merrill Lynch broker incentive system changed to give brokers no money for managing accounts less than $250,000.[9] In 2014, Merrill Edge referred 30,000 customers to Merrill Lynch and U.S. Trust. Converted referrals gave Merrill Lynch an additional $4 billion to manage, which when apportioned among Merrill Lynch's 14,000 advisers is roughly $285,700 and two referrals per adviser. When referred to Merrill Lynch, Merrill Edge's customers sometimes do not migrate their accounts because of the higher costs for trades.[9]
Products[edit]
In 2012, Merrill Edge released Face Retirement, a product that age progresses a submitted photo of a person. The aim of the tool is to convince people to save for retirement earlier because a study has shown that younger people who think of themselves being older save more.[12]
In a 2015 interview with The Wall Street Journal, Aron Levine, head of Merrill Edge, said the company was considering an "automated advice service".[7] Dozens of Bank of America workers worked on a prototype of the product, which is planned for release in 2016.[8] Merrill Edge will begin offering to customers robo-advisors that employ algorithms populated with dozens of components. Bank of America customers who invest less than $250,000 usually do not receive counsel from Merrill Edge employees, so the robo-advisors would enable them to receive advice.[13]
Reception[edit]
NerdWallet writer Arielle O'Shea gave Merrill Edge a rating of 4.5 out of 5.[14] She listed the service as "best for lowest-cost penny stock trades" because Merrill Edge offers a $6.95 flat commission with no extra fees for penny stocks.[15] O'Shea said the downsides to Merrill Edge's penny stock offering are that penny stock offerings are restricted and portfolios cannot contain exclusively penny stocks.[15] She also noted that Merrill Edge lacks no-commission exchange-traded funds.[14]
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Veneziani, Vince (2010-06-17). "Merrill Lynch Launching Online Discount Brokerage Next Monday". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
Jump up ^ Horowitz, Jed (2014-02-21). Hay, Andrew, ed. "Merrill executive loses regional sales post in western U.S." Reuters. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
^ Jump up to: a b Braswell, Mason (2014-09-04). "Bank of America doubling down on Merrill Edge". InvestmentNews. Crain Communications. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
^ Jump up to: a b c Gasparro, Annie (2010-06-18). "Merrill Makes Move Into Online Investing". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
^ Jump up to: a b Giannone, Joseph A. (2011-11-21). "Merrill Edge adds advisers, clients and assets". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
^ Jump up to: a b Barr, Colin (2011-01-24). "'Mass affluent' are strapped too, BofA finds". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Wursthorn, Michael (2015-05-07). "Merrill Edge May Add 'Robo' Advice". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
^ Jump up to: a b Son, Hugh (2015-11-06). "A Money-Managing Robot Is About to Join BofA's Thundering Herd". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Wursthorn, Michael (2015-05-05). "Merrill Lynch's Brokers Want an Edge". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
Jump up ^ Farzad, Roben; Son, Hugh (2011-03-02). "The Bull Whisperer". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
Jump up ^ Dilts, Elizabeth (2015-02-23). Wilchins, Dan; Pickering, John, eds. "Bank of America chips away at brokerage industry truce". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
Jump up ^ Benoit, David (2012-12-04). "BofA's Merrill Edge: Here to Make You Look Old". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
Jump up ^ Walsh, Dustin (2016-02-07). "Will robots zap the job market? Knowledge-based automation could make machines the new workforce". Crain's Detroit Business. Crain Communications. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
^ Jump up to: a b O'Shea, Arielle (2016-01-29). "Merrill Edge Review". NerdWallet. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
^ Jump up to: a b O'Shea, Arielle. "The Best Online Brokers for Penny Stock Trading". Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2016-02-14.
External links[edit]
Official website
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merrill_Edge&oldid=835816785"
Categories:
2010 establishments in the United States
Bank of America
Merrill Lynch
Online brokerages
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 10 April 2018, at 23:18.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: caption

value: img

attrs: alt src width height data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

value: td

attrs: colspan class style

values: 2 logo text-align:center

value: tr

attrs: href title

value: th

attrs: scope style

attrs: class style

values:
nofollow
https://www.merrilledge.com/
external free

values:
/wiki/Call_center
mw-redirect
Call center

values:
/wiki/Crain%27s_Detroit_Business
mw-redirect
Crain's Detroit Business

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
https://www.merrilledge.com/
external text

values: Category:2010 establishments in the United States

values:
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
interface

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Merrill_Edge
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Merrill_Edge rootpage-Merrill_Edge skin-vector action-view


text:
Chamber of commerce
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about trade organizations globally. For the American business lobbying organization, see United States Chamber of Commerce.
Former headquarters of Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, the oldest Chamber of commerce in the United States, established in 1768 during the British Colonial Period
A chamber of commerce (or board of trade) is a form of business network, for example, a local organization of businesses whose goal is to further the interests of businesses. Business owners in towns and cities form these local societies to advocate on behalf of the business community. Local businesses are members, and they elect a board of directors or executive council to set policy for the chamber. The board or council then hires a President, CEO or Executive Director, plus staffing appropriate to size, to run the organization.
The first chamber of commerce was founded in 1599 in Marseille, France.[1][2][3][4] Another official chamber of commerce would follow 65 years later, probably[vague] in Bruges, then part of the Spanish Netherlands.
The world's oldest English-speaking chamber of commerce is the Jersey Chamber founded in February 1768,[5] the same year the New York City Chamber was founded,[6] The oldest known existing chamber in the English-speaking world with continuous records, the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce,[7] was founded in 1783. However, Hull Chamber of Commerce[8] is the UK's oldest, followed by those of Leeds and of Belfast in present day Northern Ireland.[citation needed]
As a non-governmental institution, a chamber of commerce has no direct role in the writing and passage of laws and regulations that affect businesses. It may however, lobby in an attempt to get laws passed that are favorable to businesses.
Contents
[hide]
1 Characteristics
2 Chamber models
2.1 Community, city and regional chambers
2.2 Community chambers
2.3 City chambers
2.4 State chambers
2.5 National and international chambers
2.6 Compulsory or public-law chambers
2.7 Continental/private law chambers
2.8 Multilateral chambers
3 Surveys
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Characteristics[edit]
Membership in an individual chamber can range from a few dozen to well over 800,000, as is the case with the Paris Île-de-France Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry.[9] Some chamber organizations in China report even larger membership numbers. Chambers of commerce can range in scope from individual neighborhoods within a city or town up to an international chamber of commerce.[10]
In the United States, chambers do not operate in the same manner as the Better Business Bureau in that, while the BBB has the authority to bind its members under a formal operation doctrine (and, thus, can remove them if complaints arise regarding their services), the local chamber membership is either voluntary or required by law. In addition, Chambers represent the interests of businesses, while the BBB represents both the interests of businesses and the general public.[citation needed] Some Chambers are partially funded by local government, others are non-profit, and some are a combination of the two. Chambers of commerce also can include economic development corporations or groups (though the latter can sometimes be a formal branch of a local government, the groups work together and may in some cases share office facilities) as well as tourism and visitor bureaus.[citation needed]
Some chambers have joined state, national (such as the United States Chamber of Commerce and the British Chambers of Commerce) and even international bodies (such as Eurochambres, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Worldchambers). Currently, there are about 13,000 chambers registered in the official Worldchambers Network registry, and the chamber of commerce network is the largest business network globally. This network is informal, with each local chamber incorporated and operating separately, rather than as a chapter of a national or state chamber.[citation needed]
Chamber models[edit]
Community, city and regional chambers[edit]
Chambers of commerce in the United States can be considered community, city, regional, state, or nationwide (United States Chamber of Commerce). City Chambers work on the local level to bring the business community together to develop strong local networks, which can result in a business-to-business exchange. In most cases, city Chambers work with their local government, such as their mayor, their city council and local representatives to develop pro-business initiatives.[11] There are also bilateral chambers of commerce that link the business environments of two countries (e.g. Romanian-American Chamber of Commerce, Moldovan–American Chamber of Commerce).
Community chambers[edit]
Community chambers of commerce started[when?] in the UK and later spread to in the US, becoming city chambers of commerce as communities developed and became larger. Community chambers of commerce are smaller and most[quantify] have a limits on numbers of members.[12]
City chambers[edit]
The Marlborough Regional Chamber of Commerce in Marlborough, Massachusetts
City chambers of commerce have a long history in the US. The Charleston Chamber of Commerce is one of the oldest, dating back to colonial 1773.[13] That same year, Boston's Chamber of Commerce organized a seminal tax protest: The Boston Tea Party.[14]
In 2005 there were 2,800 chambers of commerce in the United States and 102 chambers representing U.S. businesses overseas.[11] According to the Association for Chamber of Commerce Executives (ACCE), there are approximately 3,000 chambers of commerce with at least one staff person and "thousands more established as strictly volunteer entities".[15]
State chambers[edit]
State chambers of commerce are much different from local and regional chambers of commerce, as they work on state and sometimes federal issues impacting the business community. Just as the local chamber is critical to the local business community, state chambers serve a unique function, serving as a third party voice on important business legislation that impact the business community and are critical in shaping legislation in their respective state. State Chambers work with their Governor, state representatives, state senators, US congressional leaders and US Senators. In comparison with state trade associations, which serve as a voice and resource to a particular industry, state chambers are looked to as a respected voice, representing the entire business community to enhance and advocate for a better business environment.
National and international chambers[edit]
Understanding the National or International need for understanding and information is the key service that these level of chambers of commerce provide. These services are in most cases are at no fee or cost to their members, some of the resources offer personal and/or business services that may have a very low fee (Memberships to other association like the NRA etc.).
Compulsory or public-law chambers[edit]
Under the compulsory or public law model, enterprises of certain sizes, types, or sectors are obliged to become members of the chamber. This model is common in European Union countries (e.g. France,[16] Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria), as well as Japan. Main tasks of the chambers are foreign trade promotion, vocational training, regional economic development, and general services to their members. The chambers were given responsibilities of public administration in various fields by the state which they exercise in order management. The chambers also have a consultative function; this means the chambers must be consulted whenever a new law related to industry or commerce is proposed.[17]
In Germany, the chambers of commerce and industry (IHK - Industrie- und Handelskammer) and the chambers of skilled crafts (HwK - Handwerkskammer) are public statutory bodies with self-administration under the inspectorate of the state ministry of economy. Enterprises are members by law according to the chamber act (IHK-Gesetz) of 1956. Because of this, such chambers are much bigger than chambers under private law. IHK Munich, the biggest German chamber of commerce, has 350,000 member companies.[18] Germany also has compulsory chambers for "free occupations" such as architects, dentists, engineers, lawyers, notaries, physicians and pharmacists.
Continental/private law chambers[edit]
Under the private model, which exists in English-speaking countries like USA, Canada or the UK, but as well in Sweden, Finland,[citation needed] Norway and Denmark, companies are not obligated to become chamber members. However, companies often become members to develop their business contacts and, regarding the local chambers (the most common level of organization), to demonstrate a commitment to the local economy. Though governments are not required to consult chambers on proposed laws, the chambers are often contacted given their local influence and membership numbers.
Multilateral chambers[edit]
A multilateral chamber is formed of companies (and sometimes individuals) from different countries with a common business interest towards or in a specific country. It can further be active in representing the interests of local and foreign investors in that specific country, achieved through promotion and proactivity regarding the general business environment. Multilateral chambers of commerce are independent entities strengthening business relations and interactions between all economic players, and their members may benefit from a broad range of activities that enhance the visibility and reputation of their business.
Surveys[edit]
In many countries Chambers of Commerce are a source of private sector information. The information is usually gathered by surveying Chamber members. The British Chambers of Commerce Quarterly Economic Survey is an example of a Chambers of Commerce survey that is used by official governmental departments as a guide to the performance of the economy.[19]
See also[edit]
Lobbying
Non-governmental organization
Trade group
Trade union
British Chambers of Commerce
United States Chamber of Commerce
Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce & Industry
Camera di Commercio, Industria, Agricoltura e Artigianato - Italy
All pages beginning with "Chamber of commerce"
All pages with a title containing Chamber of commerce
All pages beginning with "Chamber of Commerce and Industry"
All pages with a title containing Chamber of Commerce and Industry
European Federation of Bilateral Chambers of Commerce
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "1599 Création à Marseille de la première Chambre de Commerce". Retrieved 18 April 2011.
Jump up ^ "Le port de Marseille, qui possède la plus ancienne Chambre de Commerce de France (fondée en 1599), acquiert une notoriété Mondiale". Retrieved 18 April 2011.
Jump up ^ "Marseille, la Chambre, la plus vieille de France, crée en 1559 par Henri IV". Archived from the original on 1 April 2012. Retrieved 18 April 2011.
Jump up ^ André-Pierre Nouvion, Origine et histoire des juridictions consulaires et des Chambres de Commerce et d'Industrie Françaises, 2002
Jump up ^ "About Chamber". Jersey Chamber of Commerce.
Jump up ^ Joseph Bucklin Bishop (1918). A chronicle of one hundred & fifty years: the Chamber of commerce of the state of New York, 1768-1918. C. Scribner's sons. p. 5. Retrieved 8 February 2012.
Jump up ^ [1] Archived 5 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ "Hull Humber-chamber". hull-humber-chamber.co.uk. Retrieved 28 November 2013.
Jump up ^ "Expertise, services, local action: the Paris Île-de-France Regional Commerce and Industry is by your side". Retrieved 20 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "Victor Fedotov, Organization and Legal Models of Chambers" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 January 2011. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
^ Jump up to: a b Robert E. Weir (2007). Class in America: A-G. ABC-CLIO. pp. 121–. ISBN 978-0-313-33720-8. Retrieved 8 February 2012.
Jump up ^ "Community Chambers of Commerce". Retrieved 1 October 2014.
Jump up ^ United States Chamber of Commerce. "U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The Early Years" (PDF). U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Retrieved 24 March 2016.
Jump up ^ United State Chamber of Commerce. "U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The Early Years" (PDF). U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Retrieved 24 March 2016.
Jump up ^ "What is a Chamber?". Retrieved 22 October 2013.
Jump up ^ André-Pierre Nouvion, Chambres de commerce et d'industrie - Encyclopédie juridique Dalloz - Répertoire de droit commercial, 2005
Jump up ^ "Markus Pilgrim and Ralf Meier, Chamber Primer" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 January 2011. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
Jump up ^ "IHK München". Retrieved 31 August 2010.
Jump up ^ British Chambers of Commerce Quarterly Economic Survey Archived 7 June 2014 at the Wayback Machine.. BCC. 2014. Retrieved on 16 June 2014.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Chambers of commerce.
International Chamber of Commerce / World Chambers Federation
Chamber Search
[hide]
v
t
e
Business organizations
Types
Employers' organization
Chamber of commerce
Inter-professional association
Trade association
List of food industry trade associations
List of industry trade groups in the United States
Cooperative federation
Corporate groups
Chaebol (South Korea)
Conglomerate
Keiretsu (Japan)
Konzern (Germany)
Xi (China)
Zaibatsu (Japan)
Oppositional groups
Trade union
Consumer organization
See also
Bamboo network (Greater China) / (Southeast Asia)
Business network
Business networking
Cartel
Company registers
Real Estate Hegemony (Hong Kong)
Authority control
WorldCat Identities
VIAF: 148284369
GND: 4158996-8
SUDOC: 035104244
HDS: 13808
NDL: 00572112
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chamber_of_commerce&oldid=817396048"
Categories:
Chambers of commerce
1599 introductions
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
Use dmy dates from May 2016
All Wikipedia articles needing clarification
Wikipedia articles needing clarification from April 2017
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from November 2010
Articles with unsourced statements from May 2012
Articles with unsourced statements from May 2010
Articles with unsourced statements from January 2012
All articles with vague or ambiguous time
Vague or ambiguous time from October 2017
Articles with unsourced statements from October 2017
Articles with unsourced statements from September 2016
Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers
Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
العربية
Català
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
한국어
Հայերեն
Ido
Italiano
Lietuvių
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk
Papiamentu
Polski
Русский
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 28 December 2017, at 03:35.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: role class

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class title

values: Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York

value: b

values:
/wiki/Business_owner
mw-redirect
Business owner

values:
/wiki/Marseille,_France
mw-redirect
Marseille, France

values: This information is too vague. (April 2017)

values: Present day Northern Ireland (page does not exist)

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (November 2010)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (May 2012)

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (May 2010)

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (January 2012)

values: Edit section: Community, city and regional chambers

values: The time period mentioned near this tag is ambiguous. (October 2017)

values: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

values: This term requires quantification. (October 2017)

values: Edit section: National and international chambers

values: Edit section: Compulsory or public-law chambers

values: Edit section: Continental/private law chambers

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (September 2016)

values:
/wiki/Trade_group
mw-redirect
Trade group

values: Special:PrefixIndex/Chamber of Commerce and Industry

values: Special:Search/intitle:"Chamber of Commerce and Industry"

values: div-col columns column-count column-count-2

values: -moz-column-count: 2; -webkit-column-count: 2; column-count: 2;

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.jerseychamber.com/about-us

values:
nofollow
http://www.acce.org/whatisachamber/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.muenchen.ihk.de

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.economicsurvey.org.uk

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.ChamberSearch.com

values: List of food industry trade associations

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values:
nofollow
external text
https://viaf.org/viaf/148284369

values:
nofollow
external text
https://d-nb.info/gnd/4158996-8

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.idref.fr/035104244

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:All Wikipedia articles needing clarification

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification from April 2017

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from November 2010

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from May 2012

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from May 2010

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from January 2012

values: Category:All articles with vague or ambiguous time

values: Category:Vague or ambiguous time from October 2017

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from October 2017

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from September 2016

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values:
/wiki/Chamber_of_commerce
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: غرفة تجارة – Arabic

values: اتاق بازرگانی – Persian

values: 상공회의소 – Korean

values: Առևտրական պալատ – Armenian

values: Торговая палата – Russian

values: Торгово-промислова палата – Ukrainian

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Chamber_of_commerce rootpage-Chamber_of_commerce skin-vector action-view