• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Final report education trough the arts
 

Final report education trough the arts

on

  • 166 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
166
Views on SlideShare
166
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Final report education trough the arts Final report education trough the arts Document Transcript

    • Transforming Education Through the Arts Challenge FINAL PROJECT REPORT
    • This publication is dedicated in memory of Russell Chapman Principal of TETAC Project School Shady Brook Elementary, Bedford, Texas; Member of the TETAC National Steering Committee; and an effective advocate for arts education at the local, state and national levels
    • The National Arts Education Consortium Department of Art Education • The Ohio State University 128 North Oval Mall, Room 258 • Columbus, Ohio 43210 Telephone: 614.292.5649 • Fax: 614.688.4483 Transforming Education Through the Arts Challenge FINAL PROJECT REPORT
    • Ⅲ A Special Challenge Accepted ..............................................................................................................4 Ⅲ Experience in Arts Education............................................................................................5 Ⅲ The TETAC Project.................................................................................................................................7 Ⅲ What Did TETAC Set Out to Accomplish?.............................................................................7 Ⅲ Who Were the Major Stakeholders?..........................................................................................8 Ⅲ The Consortium Members.................................................................................................8 Ⅲ The Schools............................................................................................................................9 Ⅲ The Mentors ........................................................................................................................10 Ⅲ The Evaluators....................................................................................................................10 Ⅲ The Governance Structure...............................................................................................11 Ⅲ The National Advisory Committee................................................................................12 Ⅲ The Funders.........................................................................................................................12 Ⅲ What Was the Timeframe?........................................................................................................13 Ⅲ What Were the Historical Roots? ............................................................................................13 Ⅲ Pivotal Seminar...................................................................................................................14 Ⅲ Problems Arise ....................................................................................................................15 Ⅲ Concern Resurfaces ...........................................................................................................16 Ⅲ Getty’s Major Initiative.....................................................................................................17 Ⅲ New Law, New Chapter.....................................................................................................18 Ⅲ The TETAC Strategy for School Reform and the Arts................................................................20 Ⅲ Where Did TETAC Focus Its Efforts? ....................................................................................20 Table of Contents
    • 3 Ⅲ How Did the TETAC Strategy Change Over Time?............................................................21 Ⅲ The TETAC Curriculum Component...........................................................................21 Ⅲ The TETAC Capacity-Building Component...............................................................29 Ⅲ The TETAC Evaluation Component.............................................................................35 Ⅲ What Impact Did the TETAC Strategy Have?......................................................................42 Ⅲ Data and Findings Behind the Conclusions ........................................................................44 Ⅲ How Was the Strategy Implemented and What Was the Impact? .........................44 Ⅲ Did the TETAC Approach to Curriculum Affect Learning in the Arts? ..............62 Ⅲ Did the TETAC Approach to Curriculum Affect Learning in Other Subjects?...64 Ⅲ Lessons Learned from the TETAC Project .....................................................................................68 Ⅲ Advancing the Arts in the Regular School Curriculum.....................................................69 Ⅲ Improving Instruction in the Arts .................................................................................69 Ⅲ Integrating the Arts into the School Curriculum......................................................70 Ⅲ Changing the School Culture to Support the Arts ...................................................71 Ⅲ Administering a National School-Reform Initiative in the Arts .....................................73 Ⅲ Appendixes A National Arts Education Consortium Members and the Project Schools They Served.............................................................................................76 B TETAC National and Regional Funders...............................................................................78 Ⅲ Report Credits .......................................................................................................................................79
    • n December 1993, the Honorable Walter H. Annenberg, former U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, announced the largest single gift ever made to American public education: a $500 million “Challenge to the Nation” designed to energize and support promising school-reform efforts. The gift extended an opportu- nity and a challenge to every- one engaged in the serious work of improving the per- formance of the nation’s schools from kindergarten through 12th grade. It was a challenge to teachers, adminis- trators, students and parents and to colleges and universi- ties that were working for the cause of school reform as well as to federal, state and local governments, whose dedicated support is essential to the reform enterprise. The challenge sought a financial, political and moral response. On the financial front, Ambassador Annenberg framed the gift as a challenge to attract substantial additional funds from public and private sources. In the political arena, the challenge was designed to promote widespread public support for resolute and sustained invest- ment in America’s children through a com- mitment by officials to do all within their power to help schools succeed, including removal of the traditional obstacles to local school autonomy. Ambassador Annenberg also hoped to pro- voke Americans to attend to the country’s youngest and most fragile citizens. One of the most compelling moral investments a community can make, the ambassador believed, was providing all children with an intellectually challenging education. He hoped his gift would develop a vigorous, expanded commitment by community lead- ers to the idea that public education matters. While the bulk of the challenge was directed toward general school-reform initiatives, Ambassador Annenberg, one of the most respected private art collectors in the world, carved out a niche for several projects focus- ing on infusing the arts into the core cur- riculum of the nation’s schools. Responding to the special focus on the arts, the J. Paul Getty Trust and its Getty Education Institute for the Arts, a longtime A Special Challenge Accepted THE TETAC ARTS TETAC focused on the arts normally neglected in core curricula: the visual arts, music, theater and dance. I ‘‘Art is humanity’s most essential, most universal language. It is not a frill but a necessary part of com- munication.The quality of civiliza- tion can be measured through its music, dance, drama, architecture, visual art and literature.We must give our children knowledge and understanding of civilization’s most profound works.” Ernest L.Boyer Former U.S.secretary of education
    • ĸ 5 advocate for arts education at the national level, joined forces with the Annenberg Foundation to co-fund the Transforming Education Through the Arts Challenge, or TETAC. Together these foundations wanted to explore through TETAC how arts-education reform and general reform efforts could join forces to improve students’ learning, particularly in the arts, and to make changes in the structure of schools, the formation of partnerships among stakeholders and the development of new curricula and teaching methods. The TETAC project was initiated by the National Arts Education Consortium, or NAEC, which comprised six regional organizations in six states — California, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas. Since 1987, these organizations had worked collectively developing, testing and refining profes- sional development and curriculum imple- mentation programs to advance a compre- hensive approach to arts education in the nation’s public schools. The collective effort was designed to create and nurture networks of teachers, schools, districts, arts organizations and funders committed to arts education. The National Arts Education Consortium’s main mission was to create school environ- ments that ensured rigorous intellectual development in the arts for all students. Through the TETAC project, the Consortium worked to integrate compre- hensive approaches to arts education with other elements of whole-school reform to demonstrate the value of the arts as part of the core curriculum and to quantify student achievement in the arts. Getty Education Institute for the Arts Formerly known as the Getty Center for Education in the Arts, the Getty Education Institute was founded in the early 1980s and was closed in the late 1990s.The goal of the Getty Education Institute was to improve the quality and status of arts education in elemen- tary and secondary grades of America’s public schools.The Institute supported the establish- ment of visual arts education programs, which integrated content and skills from four disci- plines that contribute to the creation, under- standing and appreciation of art: art-making, art history and culture, art criticism and aes- thetics.This approach became known as Discipline-Based Arts Education, or DBAE. Experience in Arts Education
    • ij National Arts Education Consortium Member Organizations Ⅲ California Consortium for Arts Education at the Sacramento County Office of Education, Sacramento, California Ⅲ Florida Institute for Art Education at Florida State University,Tallahassee, Florida Ⅲ Prairie Visions: Nebraska Consortium for Arts Education at the Nebraska Arts Council, Omaha, Nebraska Ⅲ The Ohio Partnership for the Visual Arts at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Ⅲ Southeast Center for Education in the Arts at The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga,Tennessee Ⅲ North Texas Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts at University of North Texas, Denton,Texas Washington Montana Oregon Idaho Wyoming Colorado Utah Nevada California Arizona New Mexico North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Minnesota Iowa Missouri Arkansas Mississippi Wisconsin Illinois Michigan Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Florida North Carolina Virginia Maryland Delaware New Jersey Pennsylvania New York Connecticut Rhode Island Vermont New Hampshire Maine Member Organization Project School Massachusetts Indiana Louisiana South Carolina West Virginia Ohio Georgia
    • 7 he developers of the Transforming Education Through the Arts Challenge never wavered in their goal: to make meaningful study of the arts integral to a child’s education. Through flexibility and adaptability, the National Arts Education Consortium met success and developed reform strategies that enrich education for children from the inner city to the Plains. At the same time, the vision guid- ing the group changed greatly during the five years of the project. When the project began, the Consortium envisioned providing “exemplary arts units of instruction” to the 35 schools participat- ing from across the country. The Consortium thought one- or two-week sum- mer conferences and technical assistance would provide the training teachers and administrators would need to integrate the arts into the core curriculum. And the six regional organizations in the Consortium thought the evaluators would primarily measure the effects of the project. The program that emerged five years later looked much different. The success the project encountered proves that the arts can hold a key spot in the core curriculum and help change teaching from an isolated, individual endeavor to a collab- orative effort that includes students. The story of how TETAC evolved to achieve this success holds valuable lessons for any national school-reform initiative. TheTETAC Project T n fall 1996, the Consortium began implementing the Transforming Education Through the Arts Challenge, a five-year initiative to link comprehensive approaches to arts education with national and local school-reform efforts. TETAC developed and field tested an approach to instruction, Comprehensive Arts Education, or CAE, that blended the strength of three teaching practices by expecting instruction in the arts, no matter what art form, to be: Ⅲ Comprehensive, including the study of aesthetics, criticism, history and culture and the knowledge and skills needed to create or perform; Ⅲ Integrated with other core subjects around important themes or enduring ideas; and Ⅲ Delivered using “constructivist or inquiry-based” practices that adjust to the diverse learning styles of students, especially those at risk of failure. What Did TETAC Set Out to Accomplish? I
    • The Consortium set five goals: ᖇ Institutionalize support for CAE as a part of the basic core curriculum; ᖈ Demonstrate how CAE, when integrated with other elements of reform, can trans- form a school’s culture and the lives of students and teachers; ᖉ Support the active engagement and involvement of parents, communities, arts organizations, school-reform net- works and resources, funders, the broader public and education profes- sionals in this reform effort; ᖊ Create an effective combination of docu- mentation, assessment and evaluation strategies to ensure rich and reliable ways of knowing what has been accom- plished, what has not, and why; and ᖋ Create a means to disseminate informa- tion and successful practices learned from this effort among educators, legis- lators, local communities and others to inform their interest in school reform and the arts. he TETAC project was implemented by a broad national network of stake- holders interested in improving education and advancing the arts as a part of the basic core of learning in K–12 education. The network included professionals from ele- mentary and secondary schools, universities, state departments of education, state arts councils, foundations, community groups, corporations and arts institutions. The primary stakeholders involved in the daily implementation activities of the proj- ect were the six members of the National Arts Education Consortium, a cadre of men- tors and a small but extraordinary group of administrators and teachers from the 35 schools chosen for TETAC. The evaluators, funders and an advisory group of nationally known education experts also played invalu- able roles. Each of the six organizations in the Consortium (see Appendix A, page 76) worked individually with five to six schools and collaboratively with the other members in administering the project. The organizational structures of the Who Were the Major Stakeholders? T The Consortium Members
    • 9 six members varied. Four were affiliated with an institution of higher education, one was based in a state arts council and the last was in a county office of education. The common bond came from their partici- pation in the J. Paul Getty Trust’s Regional Institute Grant, or RIG, program in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From their RIG years, they developed an expertise and com- mitment toward Discipline-Based Arts Education, or DBAE, an approach that the Getty promoted. Their commitment to the approach set the stage for the TETAC proj- ect and the formation of the Consortium. In fall 1997, 36 schools from urban, suburban and rural areas in eight states — California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas — joined the TETAC project (see Appendix A, page 76). All but one school, which dropped out after one year because of local political issues, stayed until the project ended in summer 2001. The schools were clustered in groups of five or six in the regions served by the six Consortium members. Selected from a national pool of 101, the schools represented the diverse demograph- ics found throughout America’s public TABLE 1 Number of TETAC schools, by school characteristics* School Overall CA FL SE NE OH TX characteristics Instructional level Elementary school 27 4 5 5 5 3 5 Middle school 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 Senior high school 4 2 0 0 1 1 0 Other 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percentage of white students Less than 37 percent 10 1 0 2 1 2 4 38 to 64 percent 8 2 3 2 1 0 0 65 to 84 percent 9 2 3 0 1 1 2 85 percent or more 8 1 0 2 3 2 0 Percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch Less than 14 percent 9 2 1 2 1 2 1 15 to 31 percent 9 2 2 2 2 0 1 32 to 61 percent 10 2 3 2 2 0 1 62 percent or more 7 0 0 0 1 3 3 Percentage of students considered limited English speaking** 0 percent 9 0 2 2 2 3 0 1 to 5 percent 13 2 4 3 1 2 1 6 percent or more 12 4 0 0 3 0 5 * Based on data from the last year of the study, 2000 to 2001. ** Information on this characteristic was missing from one school. The Schools
    • schools (see Table 1, page 9). In addition to the differences in geographic location, varia- tions occurred in grade levels included in the schools, racial makeup of the student populations, percentage of students receiv- ing free or reduced-price lunches and per- centage of students who spoke English as a second language. To meet the Consortium’s goal of integrating arts into the core curriculum, the project purposely worked with a cross-section of teachers. More than half taught in self-con- tained classrooms, reflecting the large num- ber of elementary schools in the project (see Table 2 above). A fifth were subject-area spe- cialists, and 7 percent were arts specialists. A cadre of 35 mentors who worked directly with the schools proved crucial to the delivery of professional development and technical assistance services. The Consortium mem- bers picked their own regional mentors without general guidelines. The backgrounds and qualifications varied from region to region. All had earned a bachelor’s degree, 87.1 percent had their master’s, and 35.5 percent had their doctorate. Of the mentors with master’s degrees and doctor- ates, the vast majority majored in arts edu- cation, while the majority of bachelor’s degrees were in the arts or fine arts. In addition to working directly with the schools, mentors often served on TETAC task forces to address issues concerning the curriculum and capacity-building compo- nents of the project. In the second year of the project, the Consortium chose Westat, a social science research firm in the Washington, D.C. area, to evaluate whether its goals and objectives had been attained. The Consortium deliber- ately picked an evaluation firm familiar with school reform and assessment of student learning rather than the arts. To compensate for any lack of expertise in arts education, an arts education consultant joined the Westat national evaluation team. The evaluation effort, conducted in project years 2 to 5, addressed six areas: ᖇ Student learning; ᖈ School climate and culture; ᖉ Project implementation; ᖊ Use of collaboration; ᖋ Professional development; and ᖌ General school reform. Primary teaching assignment Percentage of All Respondents Self-contained classroom teacher 58.6 Subject-area teacher 19.9 Visual arts specialist 3.7 Music specialist 2.8 Dance specialist 0.3 Theater/drama specialist .04 Media specialist/librarian 1.7 Resource teacher 5.1 Guidance counselor 1.1 Other 6.3 Respondents totaled 935 NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. TABLE 2 Primary teaching assignment of TETAC schools’ teaching staff involved in the project The Mentors The Evaluators
    • 11 Decision making and oversight for the proj- ect at the national level were carried out by the eight-member National Steering Committee, or NSC, composed of one director from each of the six regional organizations and a teacher and principal from the project schools. The leadership of the NSC rotated, with two directors sharing the chair position over a staggered, two-year period. The NSC was governed by consensus, with all members having an equal vote. The NSC created task forces for the curricu- lum, professional development and evalua- tion components of the project. Each task force developed comprehensive plans of action with accompanying annual work plans and budgets. Initially, a member of the NSC chaired each task force. The steering committee disbanded the evaluation task force once the Consortium hired an evalua- tion firm. As the project intensified, the NSC members became overwhelmed by responsibilities outside the original intent of their position. In April 1997, the committee proposed hir- ing a national project manager, and the Getty Education Institute agreed to finance the position. The committee filled the position four months later and established a national headquarters at The Ohio State University, which was also a member of the Consortium. The project manager provided administrative support and other guidance to the project stakeholders and the NSC members. At the same time, steering committee mem- bers relinquished the task force chairs to other TETAC stakeholders. The changes created a system of governance that better reflected the collaborative nature of the project. The changes also gave the NSC members more time to devote to overseeing the national project as well as fulfilling their regional TETAC responsibilities. The Governance Structure MENTORSMENTORS MENTORS MENTORS MENTORS MENTORS FLORIDACALIFORNIA NEBRASKA OHIO TENNESSEE TEXAS Steering Committee Professional Development Task Force Curriculum Task Force Evaluation Task Force National Office 6 Partner Schools 6 Partner Schools 6 Partner Schools 5 Partner Schools 6 Partner Schools 6 Partner Schools
    • The National Advisory Committee was estab- lished to advise the NSC on important trends in school reform and on ways to approach the issues facing the TETAC effort, especially those arising from the first evaluation report, in summer 1998. A large group of national and regional funders from both the private and public sectors supported the project (see Appendix B, page 78). The catalyst was the $4.3 million grant from the Walter H. Annenberg Foundation. The J. Paul Getty Trust provided the re- quired one-to-one match, allowing the proj- ect to begin. For the local TETAC efforts, the Consortium members assembled a cadre of regional funders, bringing the total TETAC support to almost $15 million. ĕ The Funders Members of the National Advisory Committee Ⅲ Dr. John Goodlad, president of the Institute for Educational Inquiry in Seattle,Washington; Ⅲ Dr. Paula Evans, former director of professional development for the Annenberg Institute for School Reform in Providence, Rhode Island; Ⅲ Dr. Ken Sirotnik, professor and chair of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in the College of Education at the University of Washington in Seattle,Washington; and Ⅲ Dr. Andy Hargreaves, professor and director of the International Center for Educational Change in the Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education at The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto in Toronto, Canada. The National Advisory Committee
    • 13 he first two years of TETAC, from fall 1996 to summer 1998, encompassed start-up activities that included bringing the project schools on board, beginning in- service programs for them, developing and field testing the preliminary curricular model and starting the evaluation program. Based on the data and initial findings that emerged at the end of the second year, the Consortium redesigned several components of the project during the third year. This left the final two years of the project for field testing and studying the revamped approaches. What Was the Timeframe? T he historical roots of the Transforming Education Through the Arts Challenge are firmly planted in more than four decades of research and work in the “arts as a disci- pline” movement in arts education. The arts as a discipline movement origi- nated in the early 1960s with the work of Manuel Barkan, an artist and an educator from the Department of Art Education at The Ohio State University. Barkan took his cue from Jerome Bruner, a scientist who responded to the national outcry over Sputnik and the need to improve our nation’s schools by advocating curriculum reform based on one major requirement: Give students an understanding of the fun- damental structure of a discipline. Bruner defined “discipline” as any subject having an organized body of knowledge, specific methods of inquiry and skills and a community of “scholars” who generally agree on the fundamental ideas of the field. After 1957, education reform followed Bruner’s model. Using this definition of a discipline, Barkan wondered whether the arts would fit Bruner’s model. He also wondered how students would engage in a “disciplined inquiry” in the arts. He then outlined a proposal to make the arts as indispensable as math and science in the education of America’s children. In the proposal, Barkan argued: Ⅲ Arts education could be conducted as a humanistic discipline; Ⅲ The structure of the arts exists in three domains — the productive, the historical and the critical — each serving as a model for a curriculum; Ⅲ Teaching should employ both problem- centered and discipline-centered strate- gies; and What Were the Historical Roots? T
    • Ⅲ Objectives and activities for learning in the arts should be developed through themes focused on life problems to allow for better integration with other subject areas. Barkan believed in treating each of the three domains — the productive, the historical and the critical — equally, a radical depar- ture from the child-centered approach that emphasized performance/making art and the development of creative thinking. In 1965, the Arts and Humanities Program at the United States Office of Education sponsored the Seminar in Art Education for Research and Curriculum Development at Pennsylvania State University. The seminar drew the country’s leading experts in arts education, and much of the conversation focused on the idea that the arts are disci- plines with their own models of inquiry. Barkan introduced his ideas that artists, art historians and art critics should serve as models of inquiry in the arts, much as scien- tists serve as models of inquiry for science education. Two years later, the U.S. Office of Educa- tion financed the Aesthetic Education Program as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The program, which involved major curriculum development and implementation projects in the arts, was centered at one of 20 regional laboratories created by the law to reform the nation’s schools. The Aesthetic Education Program, which addressed dance, literature, music, theater and the visual arts, was conducted in two phases. In the first, research by Barkan and colleagues at The Ohio State University led ƚ Pivotal Seminar Penn State Conference Some of the leading experts in arts education presented papers at the Seminar in Art Education for Research and Curriculum Development, including June McFee, David Ecker, Jerome Hausman, Elliot Eisner and Kenneth Beittel. Experts attending from other fields included: Francis T.Villemain from philosophy; Joshua Taylor from art history; Harold Rosenberg from criticism; Allan Kaprow from art studio; Mel Tumin from sociology; and Nate Champlain, Dale Harris, Ashel Woodruff and Arthur Foshay from education. A more detailed history of the trends in arts education in the 1960s and 1970s can be found in A History of Art Education: Intellectual and Social Currents in Teaching the Visual Arts by Arthur D. Efland (1990, Teachers College Press, Columbia University).
    • 15 to the publication in 1970 of “Curriculum Guidelines for Aesthetic Education,” which outlined the conceptual content, procedures and resources for curriculum development in aesthetic education. In the next phase, the Central Midwestern Regional Educational Laboratory Inc. in St. Louis, Missouri, created curriculum pack- ages for elementary children. The Aesthetic Educa- tion Program ran into major problems by the mid-1970s, just as the curriculum materials were nearing com- pletion. The new science and mathematics materials produced under Bruner’s theory did not work as hoped, hurting support for similar initiatives in other subject areas. Also, the expense of producing the materials made publishers reluctant to undertake the project. In addition, the materials looked more like games than textbooks, making them unappealing to teachers. In the late 1970s, the “arts as a discipline” movement stalled. Elementary and Secondary Education Act By the mid-1960s, the country started to look to education to solve another problem facing America — discrimination. Federal funding shifted away from programs with a national security agenda toward programs with a strong social agenda. On April 9, 1965, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which made improving the educational opportunities of poor children a national priority. Problems Arise
    • In the early 1980s, the quality of education again came to the forefront of citizens’ concern after the National Commission on Excellence in Education released A Nation at Risk, a report that said the country’s “mediocre” education system endangered the United States’ position as the leading economic force in the world. Under pressure, schools reverted to reform strategies that focused on the basics. By 1985, national concern had grown so intense that the National Governors Association devoted an entire year to exam- ining education. President George Bush used the association’s report in 1988 to help formulate his educational agenda, America 2000. With the year 2000 the target, Bush’s plan outlined the first national perform- ance goals for America’s schools: Ⅲ All children in America would start school ready to learn; Ⅲ The high school graduation rate would increase to at least 90 percent; Ⅲ American students would leave grades 4, 8 and 12 demonstrating competency in English, mathematics, science, history and geography, and every school would prepare all students for responsible citi- zenship, further learning and productive employment; Ⅲ American students would be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement; Ⅲ Every adult would be literate and possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and to exer- cise the responsibilities of citizenship; and Ⅲ Every school in America would be free of drugs and violence and would offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. ĦA Nation at Risk The National Commission on Excellence in Education released A Nation at Risk in April 1983. The report branded the U.S. education system“mediocre”and said it threatened to undermine the country’s economic standing. In part, the report said: Ⅲ International comparisons of student achievement, com- pleted a decade ago, reveal that on 19 academic tests American students were never first or second and, in comparison with other industrialized nations, were last seven times. Ⅲ Some 23 million American adults are functionally illiterate. Ⅲ About 13 percent of all 17-year-olds in the United States can be considered functionally illiterate. Ⅲ Average achievement of high school students on most standardized tests is now lower than 26 years ago when Sputnik was launched. Ⅲ The College Board’s Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SATs) demon- strate a virtually unbroken decline from 1963 to 1980. Ⅲ Between 1975 and 1980, remedial mathematics courses in public four-year colleges increased by 72 percent. Concern Resurfaces
    • 17 In the mid-1980s, the J. Paul Getty Trust trig- gered the second phase of research in the “arts as a discipline” move- ment by opening the Getty Center for Education in the Arts. The Getty, which advocated the arts as a legitimate discipline in their own right, found Barkan’s theories attractive, particularly the idea that educa- tion in the arts should include three domains — the pro- ductive, the historical and the critical — to which the Getty added a fourth, aes- thetics. The Getty also liked the idea of using the inquiry and creative methods of artists, art historians and art critics as models for con- structing curricula. This curriculum struc- ture, the center believed, would provide more rigorous and intellectual instruction in the arts, winning the support of legisla- tors and school leaders for making the arts part of the core curriculum. The Getty’s curriculum approach became known as Discipline-Based Arts Education, or DBAE. Until the mid-1990s, the Getty promoted DBAE through the establishment of its Regional Institute Grant, or RIG, program, which financed regional institutes across the country to spearhead DBAE’s advancement. The Getty designed the RIG program to nurture a new generation of educators in the arts who would reshape their teaching around DBAE. During the Getty’s decade- long effort, thousands of teachers and administrators from approximately 217 school districts were trained in DBAE, affecting education for more than 1.5 mil- lion students. As DBAE evolved, proponents felt that this approach: Ⅲ Provided for a rigorous and thorough understanding of any art form due to its focus on the four domains of study; Ⅲ Appealed not only to those students traditionally identified as gifted, but to a wide range of thinkers and learners; Ⅲ Showed that artistic skills and under- standings did not come automatically to students through exposure to the arts but had to be nurtured and guided through the acquisition of artistic skills and perceptions; and Ⅲ Showed that students’ various stages of development and learning styles must be taken into consideration when designing learning experiences in the arts. For a full report on the Getty’s regional initiative for arts education, please see The Quiet Evolution by Brent Wilson (1997, the J. Paul Getty Trust). Getty’s Major Initiative
    • Despite some initial controversy, the arts education community eventually came to believe that by making the argument for arts education in terms of increasing com- petency, understanding and appreciation, the Getty’s efforts had slowly started to alter the image of arts education as just a “frill” in the minds of many policy makers, educa- tors and parents. In March 1994, President Bill Clinton signed Public Law 103-227, Goals 2000: Educate America Act. This law added two more goals to the original six: Ⅲ Teachers will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their skills; and Ⅲ Every school will promote involvement of parents in their children’s education. The law also expanded the core subjects for student competency in Goal 3 to include foreign languages, civics and government, economics and arts. The Getty Trust closed its center for arts education and pulled back from direct involvement in promoting DBAE by the late 1990s after the foundation changed leader- ship and started to shift focus. The new law and the subsequent release of national stan- dards for arts education provided new opportunities for advancing arts education, triggering the third phase of work in the arts as a discipline movement. Taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the third phase, the Transforming Education Through the Arts Challenge project emerged. For an in-depth look at the issues facing the Getty and its promotion of DBAE, see Clark, Gilbert A., Day, Michael D., & Greer, W. Dwaine. (1987). Discipline-Based Arts Education: Becoming Students of Art. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 21(2), 130-193. New Law, New Chapter ĽGoals 2000: Educate America Act This act provided an enormous step forward for arts education by including the arts as one of nine core subjects for student competency and legitimiz- ing the inclusion of arts educators in school-reform efforts. The act also allowed supporters of arts education to compete for public funds earmarked for school reform. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act challenged leaders in each core subject area to develop rigor- ous curricula and a set of high national standards that communities could use to improve student learning. In response, the Consortium of National Arts Education Associations developed the National Standards for Arts Education in 1994, which provided a framework concerning what stu- dents should know and be able to do in the arts.
    • he Consortium designed TETAC to fuse the advancement of education in the arts with general school reform. Three of the project’s original five goals surfaced as critical: Ⅲ Building support for learning in the arts as an equal part of the regular core cur- riculum; Ⅲ Integrating a comprehensive approach to arts inquiry with other elements of school reform; and Ⅲ Documenting the impact of the TETAC approach on student learning and school culture. To realize the first two goals, the project focused resources on creating an approach to arts instruction and building the capacity of teachers and administrators. The Consortium agreed to provide the schools with capacity-building opportuni- ties and curriculum resources in four areas: ᖇ Professional development in CAE and school-reform strategies for principals and faculty; ᖈ Technical assistance for the ongoing sup- port, advice and information necessary to complete and implement their individual school-reform plans; ᖉ Instructional resources appro- priate for CAE; and ᖊ Networking opportunities to access the Internet and com- municate electronically with the Consortium and other project schools. Where Did TETAC Focus Its Efforts? TheTETAC Strategy for School Reform and the Arts T ĪTETAC Expectations Each of the six regional members of the National Arts Education Consortium worked with up to six schools.The Consortium expected each of the 35 schools to: Ⅲ Strengthen and deepen its commitment to fully implement a Comprehensive Arts Education program; Ⅲ Engage in school-reform strategies consonant with CAE reform; Ⅲ Complete a vision statement, self assessment, five-year strate- gic plan and annual action plans; Ⅲ Participate in professional development and technical assis- tance services, particularly those offered by the regional mem- ber organization; and Ⅲ Secure matching support from public and private sources to assist with the implementation and sustainability of its reform plans.
    • 21 he TETAC project is an unfinished story of complexity, flexibility and adaptability as challenges surfaced and strategies were rethought. Often, the chal- lenges were unforeseeable or could not be grasped easily. The Consortium members originally envi- sioned building on their shared experiences with DBAE, during the Getty Trust’s Regional Institute Grant program. The members considered DBAE a mature pro- gram that had been field-tested in scores of schools, and they thought they would link the practice to general school reform to show how the arts could transform the school curriculum. The Consortium planned to build the capacity of all teachers to integrate the prin- ciples of DBAE throughout the entire cur- riculum and to study the impact of this approach on student learning, especially in the arts, and the school culture. However, as the project progressed, chal- lenges surfaced, forcing the Consortium to rethink the project’s strategies for linking the arts with general school reform. Consortium leaders then broadened the project’s strategies while still focusing the group’s work on three primary components. In telling the story of the TETAC initiative, this report spotlights the curriculum, capacity-building and evaluation compo- nents. Although outlined separately, all three are interrelated, underscoring one lesson from the initiative: The connections among all aspects of school reform work to define and change strategies during a pro- ject’s implementation. Where the Thinking Began While developing the TETAC project, all six members of the Consortium considered the curriculum component fairly straightfor- ward. In their proposal to the Annenberg Challenge in May 1995, the members wrote: Since 1987, six regional institutes in California, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas have been devel- oping, testing and refining profes- sional development and curriculum implementation programs for com- prehensive arts education [under the Getty Regional Institute Grant (RIG) program]. … Over the years, members of the Consortium have developed a trove of materials to aid in the advo- cacy for and teaching of the arts, and new resources are continuously being generated. T The TETAC Curriculum Component How Did the TETAC Strategy Change Over Time?
    • The Consortium originally planned to sup- ply the TETAC schools with units of instruction in the arts that the members developed under the RIG program. The Getty Trust, eager to continue promoting DBAE, planned to hire curriculum experts to develop additional materials. The Consortium wanted to use a one-size- fits-all model for two reasons. The members thought the model would encourage teach- ers to adopt the theoretical base of DBAE for their overall practice in the classroom, improving the learning environment and building support for education in the arts among all teachers. Second, mindful of the rarity of quantitative data in arts education, the Consortium and the Getty Trust wanted to document student learning and thought common units of instruction in the arts were needed for an accurate evaluation. What Issues and Challenges Surfaced During the first two years, challenges brought the curriculum strategy into question. The one-size-fits-all approach failed to accommodate the diversity of mandates and curricular requirements found among the 35 schools, which represented 31 school systems in eight states across the nation. District mandates prevented many schools from using the arts units the Consortium supplied. With the schools that could use them, the theoretical base did not necessar- ily become a part of the teachers’ under- standing or repertoire, bringing issues of quality and sustainability to the surface. At the same time, Consortium members continued to research new ideas about teaching and learning, such as inquiry- based instructional approaches and teach- ing for understanding, and they considered ways to link the DBAE approach with these practices. How the Thinking and Strategies Shifted More than a new way of thinking, the changes to the curriculum component rep- resented an evolution in the Consortium’s understanding of how best to link the arts with school-reform efforts. The members gradually broadened the theoretical base of the curriculum work but never abandoned the foundation of the approach. ŜTETAC Book Davis Publications in Worcester, Massachusetts, will publish a textbook based on the TETAC cur- riculum work. Dr. Marilyn Stewart of Kutztown University and Dr. Sydney Walker of The Ohio State University, on behalf of the Steering Committee and Curriculum Task Force of the National Arts Education Consortium, will co-write the pre-serv- ice/in-service teacher education text as a part of Davis’Art Education and Practice Series.The antici- pated release will be late 2003.
    • 23 All People Tell Stories For fourth-graders in California, teachers focused a unit of study on the enduring idea“all people tell stories to explain their world”and chose two paintings as a center point.The unit crossed disciplines, combining language, visual and performing arts, science, history and social science. The first phase took place in earth science class. Students studied the layers of the earth, earth- quakes and rocks and minerals as well as cave formations. During the study of caves, students learned about pictographs and petroglyphs made by earlier civilizations. The students then examined two paintings, The Creation by contemporary artist Harry Fonseca and Sunday Morning at the Mines by 19th-century California artist Charles Christian Nahl. Fonseca tells stories using symbols much like the petroglyphs and pictographs associated with his Native American heritage. Nahl’s painting depicts life in the California gold mines during the Gold Rush. Students compared the two paintings in oral and written form, paying particular attention to the way each artist tells a story. Students wrote and performed a Reader’s Theater interpreta- tion of the artworks, and they read literature that featured stories about children living in California’s past.They also created their own artworks, incorporating symbols to tell stories important to them. Students deepened their understanding of the paintings by studying the social and historical contexts.The lessons included three field trips — one to a series of caverns, another to a recon- structed Native American village and one to the site where gold was first found.
    • ŢTeachers Address Mandates With Lessons In developing units of study,TETAC teachers aligned concepts and skills with national, state and local standards.The TETAC Curriculum Guidelines also emphasized the importance of building on knowledge students obtained in previous lessons. For example, a Florida middle-school unit focused on the idea of personal voice and explored this idea through poetry and still lifes.This unit addressed the state-man- dated language arts standards concerning the use of literary devices and techniques, word choice, symbolism and figurative language. Standards for the visual arts included using media to communicate ideas, using symbols and making connections between visual arts, other disciplines and the real world. The sequence of lessons carefully introduced the concepts of per- sonal voice, symbolism and metaphor.The first lessons featured the work of 19th-century still-life painter William M. Harnett. Students focused on how the artist selected objects and used techniques to convey an autobiographical message. In the next lesson, students explored how ordinary objects can have more than one meaning. Students then considered the work of contemporary artist Audrey Flack, who uses objects to carry several meanings.The students compared the way the two artists worked with symbolism. Additional lessons introduced the figurative language, including the use of simile, metaphor and personification, as found in the poetry of Gary Soto, who wrote a series of“odes”to everyday objects such as the tortilla, tennis shoes and a garden sprinkler. As part of this exploration, students created journal entries about significant objects in their own lives. In final lessons, students selected and arranged personal objects for a still-life drawing and used the steps in the writing process to create poetry about one or more of the objects.The students reflected on the ways their drawings and poetry symbolically communicated an autobiographical message.
    • 25 To address the challenges, the TETAC Curriculum Task Force developed a tool called the Multidisciplinary Standards Framework. The task force thought the framework would guide the development and adaptation of multidisciplinary curriculum units that not only met the characteristics of DBAE but also embraced standards for other subject areas, such as history and math. While the framework would have broadened the curriculum, allowing for better integra- tion of the arts, it would have failed to solve problems created by the one-size-fits-all approach. In addition, continuing to supply teachers with units of instruction did not address the long-term advancement of the teachers’ theoretical understanding of instructional design and classroom practice. As the second year of the project ended, the national team of evaluators finished its first report, which set the baseline for the national evaluation. Concerning curricu- lum efforts, the report said: There has been a controversy over whether the schools should be given standard units to implement as one part of their program or whether they should be expected to develop their own, given that in the long run increas- ing capacity at the individual school and staff level is essential if the pro- gram is to be sustained. The decision ultimately is a program decision. … It is important to point out, however, that movement in this area is slow and that the lack of units — standard or school- developed — is a bottleneck in the implementation process. We urge the TETAC [project] to address this issue head on during the [project’s third] year and commit to a strategy for mov- ing along the process. The Curriculum Task Force, with the evalu- ators’ help in reviewing the data, revisited the issue and proposed moving from an approach that imposed standardized units of instruction on a school to a strategy that encouraged teachers to think deeply about their classroom practice and its improve- ment. The change would mean the Consortium needed to focus on building the capacity of teachers in several areas: curriculum design; development and adap- tation; authentic assessment of student learning; and assessment of the quality of the learning and teaching environment. In addition, the task force emphasized the need for flexibility to allow the project’s curriculum strategy to accommodate and adapt to local mandates. The group also recommended that the strat- egy promote ways to better link comprehen- sive approaches in arts education with the regular core curriculum to assure that learn- ing in the arts was meaningful and that education in the arts moved toward equality with other core subject areas.
    • From this analysis, the task force members and evaluators outlined a new strategy, which philosophically embraced: Ⅲ A multiple-domain approach to arts inquiry, as promoted by DBAE, including knowledge and skills in creating or per- forming, aesthetics, criticism and history and culture; Ⅲ An integrated instructional approach both within the arts and among all sub- ject areas to meaningfully integrate art throughout the curriculum; Ⅲ The use of a theme or enduring idea from the arts or life around which inquiry in all disciplines would be designed; Ⅲ The use of inquiry-based instructional techniques that would encourage stu- dents to solve problems, take risks, seek alternative solutions, relate learning to real-life experiences and employ collabo- rative, as well as individual, learning strategies; Ⅲ A collaborative planning and teaching approach among teachers both within grade and cross-grade; Ⅲ The delivery of instruction in the arts by classroom teachers as well as arts special- ists; and Ⅲ The design of learning environments that accommodate the diverse needs of students. From this philosophical base, the task force members and evaluators developed the TETAC Curriculum Guidelines to help teachers create or adapt curricula in the arts that linked to other core subjects. They titled this approach Comprehensive Arts Education, or CAE. ƅEnduring Ideas “Enduring ideas”comprise concepts that have drawn the attention of humans through the ages. In TETAC, these ideas are taught repeatedly throughout a unit of curriculum. Key concepts and essential questions are derived from interpreting artworks in the context of the enduring ideas. Examples of enduring ideas include: Ⅲ The inner quest for self-knowledge. Ⅲ Relationships among humans. Ⅲ Relationships between humans and nature. Enduring Ideas in the Classroom In submitting their written units of instruction, TETAC teachers routinely reflected on their work. They often spoke of the importance of articulating and teaching enduring ideas and key concepts. Through this focus, the teachers became far more selective in choosing instructional strategies, as an elementary teacher in Nebraska wrote: “The art of alignment in a unit is something I am now much more aware of. Do the key concepts guide the lessons? Are the art questions appropri- ate and do they fit with the artists and lesson design? Is the enduring idea an umbrella for last- ing ideas that have value beyond the classroom? All of these questions and more help to define my passion for developing quality units that engage and excite students.”
    • 27 The guidelines introduced the notion of using an “enduring idea” as the foundation of CAE. The task force characterized endur- ing ideas as life issues that extend beyond specific disciplines and that have lasting human importance. The guidelines assisted teachers in establishing an enduring idea, then encouraged them to identify related concepts drawing from all subject areas. The guidelines also included provocative ques- tions to promote the development of instructional strategies and inquiry-based learning experiences. The process created the conceptual founda- tions for teachers to frame and shape cur- riculum content and align assessment tasks and performances. The guidelines also explained how these foundations could help teachers meet local, state and national stan- dards. The guidelines emphasized that by using enduring ideas and other founda- tional components, a teacher could avoid activities insignificant for lifelong learning. The Consortium introduced CAE to teachers during national and regional professional development events at the end of year 3. Once you teach this way, you never want to go back. Classroom teacher Buck Lake Elementary School, Tallahassee,Florida
    • ėThe TETAC Curriculum Guidelines The guidelines offer a series of questions, explanations and examples to help educators develop new units of instruction or evaluate existing units.The guidelines are organized in five areas: Unit Foundations: This area defines the foundations for integrating inquiry across disciplines and aligning all components of a unit, including assessment, content and instruction. Key to the foundations is the establishment of an enduring idea around which inquiry in the arts and other disciplines can be meaningfully integrated.These ideas are not discipline specific but embrace life issues that have lasting human importance and appear to be of continual concern to humans at different times and in different cultures.These ideas are explored repeatedly through the perspectives offered by the various disciplines. Content: This area outlines the knowledge and skills to be introduced or developed in explor- ing the enduring idea, including the alignment of local curriculum standards and mandates. In the arts, knowledge and skills were drawn from four domains — art history, aesthetics, art pro- duction and art criticism. Instruction: This area guides teachers in planning the learning strategies to use in delivering the unit of instruction. In particular, the area promotes, though not exclusively, the use of stu- dent-centered, inquiry-based teaching approaches that assist students in arriving at an under- standing of the enduring idea. Assessment: This area guides teachers in structuring and aligning assessment activities with the enduring idea and the unit content to assure that the learning activities are relevant and engaging. Design: This area outlines criteria for teach- ers to use in reviewing the quality of a whole unit of instruction being developed to assure that the areas of the unit are aligned and that coherence and clarity exist with the sequenc- ing of lessons and relationships among con- cepts being explored.
    • 29 Where the Thinking Began The Consortium members reasoned that the project’s success and sustainability hinged on the principal and faculty at each of the 35 schools and their ability to implement and sustain Discipline-Based Arts Education along with various reform strate- gies. The Consortium wanted to build the capacity of at least 80 percent of a school’s administration and faculty to integrate DBAE throughout the curriculum. By achieving this critical mass, the Consortium hoped to institutionalize support for the arts in the regular core curriculum. The Consortium proposed two categories of capacity-building services: professional development and technical assistance. Professional development would include training activities staged in a central loca- tion in each region around the larger ideas and goals of the project, such as training in DBAE. Technical assistance would include individualized services offered at a school for either an individual or group. For professional development, the members proposed one- to two-week summer confer- ences, the same model used during the RIG program. The teams attending the programs would include teachers, arts specialists if they existed, principals, parents and other community members. The programs would equip the teams with the tools needed to advance the arts in their school curricula through intensive DBAE training. The programs would be offered at three levels — beginning, intermediate and advanced — during the project. Most of the Consortium members offered little technical assistance during the RIG program. With the TETAC initiative, the Consortium wanted to offer ongoing sup- port, advice and information to the schools throughout the academic year to build broad and deep support for the project. However, the Consortium did not have a specific model to propose for technical assistance. What Issues and Challenges Surfaced In November 1996, the Consortium’s Professional Development Task Force issued a plan for the capacity-building component of the project highlighting a challenge that surfaced after the proposal stage: the rela- tionship between the national funders — The Walter H. Annenberg Foundation and the J. Paul Getty Trust. The Annenberg Foundation wanted the project to focus on linking the arts with whole-school reform; the Getty Trust was primarily interested in arts-education reform. In an effort to meet both agendas, the Consortium created a two-tier system, clas- sifying half of the schools as “Annenberg” and half as “Getty.” But the task force found accommodating the two-tier system diffi- cult in designing professional development and technical assistance services with a lim- ited budget. Because of the Consortium’s experience with the RIG program, the initial capacity- building services offered to all schools heavily favored the Getty agenda. The sum- mer institutes focused on the DBAE The TETAC Capacity- Building Component
    • approach rather than the larger realm of general school reform. Eventually, represen- tatives from the Annenberg Challenge questioned the predilection for the old Getty agenda, urging the Consortium to give equal focus to the school-reform goals of the original proposal. Focusing on Technical Assistance For technical assistance, the Consortium set up a system of coaches or mentors across the nation to work individually with the schools and to act as liaisons between the schools and the regional organizations. The Consortium allowed each organization to develop criteria for selecting the mentors and to define the mentors’ roles. This approach produced considerable differences in the qualifications and responsibilities of the mentors and the intensity of the men- toring services offered by each regional organization. While identifying the mentoring services as the most important aspect of capacity build- ing, the national evaluators cautioned the Consortium: [O]ur initial examination of [the men- toring] component suggests that for both the mentors and the partner schools, roles are not clearly defined, opportunities for interaction differ, and there is no clear set of expectations for the assistance and guidance that these specialists should provide. We also question whether the mentors them- selves are comfortable providing assis- tance in all the areas they are asked to address and whether some of the activi- ties initiated to expand their knowledge and skills need to be further developed. The issue would affect the mentoring com- ponent throughout the life of the project. Re-examining Service Delivery The Consortium encountered unanticipated service-delivery challenges. One challenge involved the Consortium’s goal of training more than 80 percent of the teachers and administrators, a goal built on the mistaken assumption that turnover would be low. Not only did the schools turn over up to 40 per- cent of their teaching staffs during the five- year project, but a similar percentage changed principals, some more than once. The need to bring new stakeholders up to speed never ended. The cost of offering services varied greatly by region depending on the geographic separation of the schools. Only one region chose schools all in one metropolitan area. Four organizations picked schools across their states, some hundreds of miles apart. One region chose schools in three states. In addition, teachers found attending week- long professional development events diffi- cult because a constantly changing land- scape of curriculum mandates required
    • 31 them to take other summer training pro- grams and year-round workshops, leaving little time for additional capacity-building activities. As the schools progressed through the proj- ect, the need for the individualization of services, whether professional development or technical assistance, increased dramati- cally. Consequently, the Consortium faced the challenge of finding ways to accommo- date differences created by local curricular requirements and reform mandates. The final challenge for the capacity-building component involved the emerging need for professional development events for the administrators, teachers and mentors at the national level. The Consortium saw a need to reinforce a common understanding of the project’s goals and theoretical base and to ensure that everyone had an equal ability to carry out the work. However, no funds existed for national events. How the Thinking and Strategies Shifted Almost from the beginning, the Consortium found the two-tier school system developed to accommodate the funders’ differing goals problematic. Not only were the expectations different for the two tracks, but the services and resources were unequal, creating confu- sion and exasperation among the schools. In addition, the Annenberg Challenge expressed dissatisfaction with the Getty schools’ focus solely on arts education and not whole-school reform, the focus for the Annenberg schools. As the Consortium delved deeper into the objectives for each tier, the members became convinced that reform in arts education and general school reform were intrinsically linked, and common ground between the Getty and Annenberg approaches existed. The Consortium leadership then dropped the designations and developed a common set of expectations that better balanced the
    • funders’ agendas. The Consortium used the common expectations in designing the capacity-building services, allowing the members to develop and offer similar serv- ices that focused on the evolving TETAC curricular approach and general school- reform strategies. Mentoring the Mentors At about the same time, the Consortium addressed the mentor issues raised in the first evaluation report. Because all six organizations already had a system in place, they tried to find ways to standardize the services and equalize the mentors’ diverse levels of abilities. The Consortium’s first task was to develop a common set of responsibilities for the men- tors that included: Ⅲ Advancing a common understanding of the project’s goals among the TETAC schools’ staffs and communities; Ⅲ Facilitating the required collaborative planning processes at each TETAC school necessary for the development and implementation of reform plans, addressing needs that included: Ⅲ professional development, Ⅲ technical assistance, Ⅲ use of technology, Ⅲ use of community resources, Ⅲ project evaluation, Ⅲ assessment of student achievement and Ⅲ advancement of collaborative planning; ĒNational TETAC Meetings Four national meetings of the mentors were staged around the following topics: March 16-17, 1998, in Los Angeles “Defining a Common Understanding of the Mission and Goals for the TETAC Project” October 30, 1998, to November 2, 1998, in Jekyll Island, Georgia “Reflective Strategies for Improving Classroom Practice and Utilization of Inquiry-Based Instructional Techniques” April 9-13, 1999, in Kansas City, Missouri “Communication Strategies for Facilitating School-Reform Efforts and Using Enduring Ideas for Integrated Inquiry” February 26-27, 2000, in San Francisco “Finalizing and Designing an Implementation Plan for the TETAC Curriculum Guidelines”
    • 33 Ⅲ Reporting to Consortium members about the progress of the schools and the design of professional development and technical assistance services; and Ⅲ Advising and assisting the TETAC national evaluation team. This joint statement of responsibilities clari- fied the mentors’ role for both the schools and mentors. Next, the Consortium pursued the idea of staging national meetings for the mentors to advance a common understanding of the goals and purposes of the project while building the mentors’ capacity to assist the schools. The main challenge involved funds, which the Consortium eventually obtained. Four mentor meetings took place during years 2 through 4. Each focused on a differ- ent aspect of the mentors’ work, allowing them to jointly explore these areas, build strategies for assisting the schools and list the project’s goals by priority to better syn- chronize their services across the nation. These meetings emphasized a common understanding of the theoretical basis of the project but never discouraged the regional variations needed to accommodate local differences. Facing Realities The Consortium then confronted the issues related to delivery of capacity-building serv- ices. Research shows that turnover plagues the vast majority of school-reform initiatives across the nation, leading the Consortium to redesign this component keeping the problem in mind. The members also accepted as a given that school systems would continue to set indi- vidual educational policies and curriculum mandates. This meant the Consortium needed to design a flexible and adaptable approach to professional development just as it did with the curriculum. Shifting the Thinking These realizations caused the Consortium to make a major philosophical shift during the third year of the project. The Consortium decided to provide continuous, long-term capacity-building services at all levels of expertise to accommodate turnover throughout the project. This approach allowed schools to draw from a menu of services, depending on individual circum- stances. For example, a school experiencing a large turnover in its teaching staff might need introductory professional development events to train the new teachers. Alternatively, the school might design a mentoring program that used teachers already experienced with the programs and priorities of the school to train new staff members individually. “The TETAC project put us in areas where we were not comfortable. Now that we’re through it, I can’t imagine teaching and not doing it. To grow you have to be put through it.” Nebraska teacher
    • The shift also required the Consortium to broaden the professional development serv- ices beyond the summer programs. During the third project year, the regional organiza- tions began developing a wider variety of offerings. Expanding Capacity-Building Opportunities Several Consortium members, housed at universities, offered graduate-level courses to help teachers and administrators develop a deep understanding of the curriculum approach as the project evolved. Some courses were staged at individual schools, allowing teachers to support each other and the professor to draw on highly relevant examples. Other courses were offered in locations convenient to several schools, allowing teachers to network and to more broadly understand the course content in relation to a variety of school settings. Courses also were offered over the Internet, giving teachers flexibility and Consortium members a way to reach out to schools regardless of the geographic distance. In all cases, the courses engaged teachers for 10 to 16 weeks with a mentor, allowing them to achieve a depth of learning uncom- mon to short-term experiences. The Consortium members also provided one-day workshops at individual schools focused on an issue confronting the teach- ers and administration. Often these took place as part of a larger planning retreat for the school, which meant that most of the faculty and administrators attended. Another delivery system entailed the men- tors spending an entire week working at a school, offering a variety of services that included demonstration teaching, team teaching, workshops, community presenta- tions, strategic planning sessions and impromptu meetings with the faculty and administration. Leadership academies also proved an effec- tive means of building capacity. Convening meetings of the key teachers and adminis- trators at a school enabled them to step back from daily implementation and see the big picture of the project. Sometimes leader- ship teams from several schools were brought together, which cross-pollinated thinking. In one region, mentors combined annual retreats for principals with site visits, a particularly effective approach for new principals. The Consortium discovered as the project progressed that the discomfort of general classroom teachers and school administra- tors with the arts stood as a major barrier. Several regions staged workshops, often at a museum, to build the capacity of these indi- viduals to appreciate and produce art them- selves. After the workshops, the mentors, along with the schools’ arts specialists, helped the teachers integrate the arts into the core curriculum.
    • 35 Where the Thinking Began Two of the original five goals for the TETAC project focused on documenting and evaluat- ing the impact of the project on student learning and the school culture and sharing the findings and lessons nationally. In the proposal, the Consortium members said the documentation would include a rich array of assessment tools and approaches focused on systemic change and student achievement. The Consortium originally expected schools to complete a vision statement, self-assess- ment and a five-year and one-year planning process and submit periodic progress reports. The schools were to receive financial support to document student achievement in all sub- jects and progress related to the implementa- tion of arts-education reform and school- reform strategies. What Issues and Challenges Surfaced As the project began, two evaluation experts joined a representative of the Consortium to flesh out a plan for the TETAC evaluation component. As had been the challenge for the Professional Development Task Force, they grappled with how to design an evalua- tion plan that could accommodate the dif- fering agendas of the two national funders, The Annenberg Foundation and the Getty Trust. In the end, the task force strongly recommended making the evaluations and assessments the same whenever possible for both tracks. The task force then presented goals and an organizational plan for the project’s evalua- tion effort and a timeline for implementa- tion. The first and most important task was to select a national evaluator capable of han- dling the complexity of the project and acceptable to the two funders. The original timeline unrealistically set a deadline of one month, December 1996. Once selected, the evaluation team was to assist the Consortium in developing a detailed five-year evaluation plan ready for implementation by June 1997, just as the schools would join the project. Searching for a National Team The selection process became much more difficult and lengthy than envisioned. After an initial round uncovered no one able to handle the complex needs of the national evaluation, the task force revised the require- ments. In fall 1997, the task force invited two The TETAC Evaluation Component
    • larger organizations to submit proposals, and, in late fall, the Consortium and funders began final negotiations with Westat. At this point, the Consortium realized the estimated cost of implementing a national evaluation effort would require all the funds earmarked from both funders for assessment and evaluation. Originally, The Annenberg Foundation wanted its portion to go toward local capacity building in evaluation and assessment. Funds from the Getty Trust were to be used to develop and administer an instrument for measuring the impact of DBAE on student learning in the arts. Changing the Focus As the reality of the cost became clearer, the plan focused less on building the capacity of teachers and administrators in evaluation and more on an evaluation of the project’s impact. While this suited the Getty’s inter- ests, it created problems for The Annenberg Foundation, though it eventually agreed to support the final plan. The delay in hiring a team also prevented evaluators from collecting baseline data. The Consortium finalized the contract with Westat in March 1998, almost a year later than projected and almost a year after the schools joined the project. By that time, the regional organizations had begun providing technical assistance and professional devel- opment services. In addition, changes to the curriculum and capacity-building components of the project in year 3 forced the national evaluators to revise their long-range plan and measure the results of the shift in thinking and services.
    • 37 How the Thinking and Strategies Shifted In April 1998, the TETAC national evalua- tion effort began. Westat, a social science research firm in the Washington, D.C., area, had expertise in designing and man- aging large-scale school-reform studies but lacked experience in arts education. To address the Consortium’s concerns, Westat hired a national expert in arts education as a consultant. The data-collection effort implemented in years 2 to 5 originally was designed to sup- port an analysis focused on the end results. It was to address the following areas and questions reflecting the Consortium’s goals: Student learning: What impact has TETAC exerted on student learning in the arts and in non-arts areas? School climate and culture: How has TETAC affected the school as a place of learn- ing? To what extent is arts education recog- nized as a critical part of the instructional program? Is there an integration of instruc- tion across subject areas? Is there an environ- ment of inquiry and active engagement? Implementation of CAE: What progress have the 35 schools made in implementing the Comprehensive Arts Education approach? What factors have facilitated and/or hindered the success of this approach in the schools? Collaborations: What kinds of collabora- tions have been established? How have these affected the view of arts education? The instructional climate? The instructional program? Professional development: What types of professional development services are being delivered to prepare teachers and others in the CAE approach? Who is receiv- ing the support? What areas/skills are cov- ered? What has been the impact on class- room instruction? General school reform: What other school-reform initiatives are underway in the TETAC schools? What has been the interaction between CAE and the other school-reform initiatives? What impact has existing school-reform initiatives had on the implementation of arts-education reform efforts (and vice versa)? To what extent has CAE served as an agent for broader school reform? To answer these questions, the evaluators used both broad-based and targeted data collection. They examined information from surveys they developed; routine data such as test scores, attendance and dropout rates provided by the schools; curriculum unit analyses; and arts assessments in selected schools. The evaluators also examined quali- tative information obtained through site visits and reviews of open-ended comments added by respondents on the surveys. One senior high and 10 elementary schools were chosen for case studies and examined in more depth (see Table 3, page 38).
    • A critical issue faced was whether to use a control group for a comparison with the TETAC schools. The evaluators decided against using a control group because the project had been underway for a year, funds were insufficient and few schools would be willing to participate in an activity they would consider burdensome. Instead, the national evaluators adapted a design used in other school-reform evaluations examin- ing the relationship between implementa- tion level, particularly change in implemen- tation level, and changes in student outcomes. The evaluators wanted to deter- mine if greater progress in implementing TETAC strategies led to greater change in student learning in the arts. In this model, neither starting nor ending point per se is critical but rather the degree of change. The evaluation plan had set as one of its primary goals the gathering of hard data concerning the impact of TETAC on stu- dent learning in the arts and non-arts areas. Data of this type, especially in the arts, were rarely available in building the case for the importance of the arts in education. While the evaluators could use standardized achievement tests to generate the data on student learning in non-arts areas, compa- rable tests were not readily available to measure arts learning, with one exception — the National Assessment of Educational Progress in the Arts. The evaluators decided to develop an assessment instrument build- ing on the NAEP experience and what had been learned about it. This instrument was used in the 11 TETAC case-study schools. Changing Relationships and Roles The first evaluation report, sent to the pro- ject’s National Steering Committee and the funders, provided a detailed discussion of the overall status of the project implemen- tation, data on each component’s design Data collection activity SCHEDULE ACCORDING TO PROJECT YEAR Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Documents materials X X X X Curriculum units X X X Teacher survey X X Mentor survey X Student survey X X Site visits (all schools) X X Case studies (11 schools) X X Ⅲ Arts assessments X X X Ⅲ Individual student achievement data from non-arts assessments X X X TABLE 3 Schedule of Date Collection Activities for Project Years 2,3,4,5
    • 39 The TETAC Arts Assessment Because no existing assessment fit the project’s needs,the evaluators developed the TETAC Art Assessment.Below are samples from the version for elementary schools. Today we are going to learn about still lifes. Still lifes are pictures that artists make of objects such as flow- ers or bowls of fruit. Ⅲ Look at still life A.What does the picture show? Use details from the artwork to support your answer. Ⅲ Look at still life A again. Ⅲ What object appears farthest away in the picture? Ⅲ How does the artist make this object look farther away than the other objects in the picture? Ⅲ Look at still life A. Place a check (√ ) in front of the word or words that describe how the artist made the object look lifelike. Check all that apply. Ⅲ Look at still life B. Fill in the circle that best describes the style of the artwork. ____ use of light and dark ____ perspective ____ shadows ____ many straight lines ࠗ Impressionism ࠗ Modern ࠗ Abstract ࠗ Realism A B Painting A:Gustave Courbet, Still Life:Fruit,1871-1872 Painting B:Umberto Boccioni, Still Life with Glass and Siphon,c.1914
    • and descriptions of the status of each school. Instead of finding a mature curricu- lar approach as the Consortium expected, the evaluation teams discovered that many schools were just beginning to develop their understanding of DBAE. Even though the results were unexpected and highly disappointing, the committee and funders considered the findings credi- ble, particularly because representatives of the regional organizations accompanied evaluators on all site visits. From then on, the evaluators became indispensable mem- bers of the team in ways the Consortium had not envisioned. The project leadership brought together the evaluators and the project’s national advi- sory group for a two-day meeting in September 1998. The meeting yielded two important insights: Ⅲ The process of reform was far more com- plex than the TETAC project leadership ever envisioned. In addition, while high expectations were important, a ground- ing in the realities of the change process also was important. Ⅲ While the leaders had a joint understand- ing of what they were trying to do and how they were trying to do it on the most general level, they had widely varying perceptions of what implementation meant and what a fully formed program would look like. The leaders looked carefully at the imple- mentation rating scale the evaluators devel- oped and discovered they had never shared ĮThe National Assessment of Educational Progress The National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, sci- ence, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography and the arts. NAEP, which the federal government oversees, tests stu- dents in public and private schools in grades 4, 8 and 12. The government issues reports for the nation as a whole and for regions. It also divides the results by achievement, instructional experiences and school environment for dif- ferent groups, such as fourth-graders or Hispanics. In 1997, the last time the government offered the arts assessment, approx- imately 6,480 students in Grade 8 took the test, which measured students’ knowledge and skills in music, theater and the visual arts.
    • 41 their goals at that level of specificity. They also realized they had moved away from some original goals, and where this move- ment had taken them was less clear. In addi- tion, the leaders realized they had conflict- ing priorities. Unintentionally, the evaluation and its first report had become a catalyst for intensive reflection about the project. Instead of becoming defensive or antagonistic, the leaders used the results to stimulate their own thinking and examination of the process. Through this introspection, they began evolving from a group of six individ- ual organizations into a team unified in its drive to develop a meaningful reform pro- gram for arts education. Expanding the Evaluators’Role The relationship between the project leader- ship and the evaluation team continued to evolve. As the leaders reflected on what they meant by project implementation, the eval- uators became part of the conversation, both prompting discussion and probing what was meant when discussions were unclear or participants talked past each other. In addition, as the leadership strug- gled to put together a renewed mission statement and clarify the project’s goals and expectations, the evaluators read the new documents, raising questions and pushing for clarification. The benefits from this interaction went both ways. While the project leadership
    • benefited from the evaluators’ process of inquiry, as well as their knowledge of whole school reform, the evaluators benefited from the Consortium members’ delibera- tions on arts-education reform and the somewhat diverse slants taken on the TETAC goals. The evaluators became secondary players in the efforts to provide new supports to the schools, commenting on the structure of the supports and attending critical events, such as the national professional development conferences for mentors, and helping to examine their efficacy. Formative evalua- tions — research conducted during the proj- ect to help analyze strategies — began play- ing a pivotal role. The leaders drew heavily on some tools and processes initially developed for the summa- tive evaluation, the research measuring the final results. For example, the leaders used the project implementation-rating scale to guide the site visits and to formulate bench- marks for measuring progress. Their feed- back helped the evaluators refine their own approach and validate the scale’s utility. What Impact Did the TETAC Strategy Have? nalysis of the data collected during the last four years of the project led the evaluators to conclude the project showed success for the TETAC strategy as it evolved. The findings indicate the approach holds many benefits for schools able to over- come challenges inherent in any program designed for nationwide implementation. Evaluators measured success on many levels. While not for the timid, the TETAC strategy for school reform and the arts clearly provides a means of enriching student learning and for chang- ing the culture of a school. Overall, school reform and TETAC are not only compatible, in many ways they share the same proper- ties, practices and goals. Most importantly, the evaluation shows that the TETAC strat- egy can be effective in all types of environ- ments, including the inner city. CAE provides a model for integrated arts instruction that can be adapted to a wide range of teaching and learning envi- ronments. It can be effectively integrated with overall school reform, especially at the elementary and middle school levels. The approach is not easy to implement, being guided by general goals and objectives A Enriching Student Leaning Providing Flexibility
    • 43 rather than detailed and closely prescribed practices. However, this gives the approach the flexibility needed to accommodate the variety of mandates schools face. Schools that embraced the strategy of TETAC, adopting and adapting practices consistent with their local man- dates and requirements, experienced many benefits. The improvements included increased collaboration among teachers; more opportunity for thematic, integrated instruction; new ways of teaching and col- laborating with students in the learning process; higher expectations for students; and new attitudes about the arts and their value to the curriculum. CAE is effective in promoting deeper learn- ing in the arts. Further, while the evalua- tion fails to provide evidence of positive effects on learning in other subjects, the findings strongly suggest that adding the arts and broadening students’ learning opportunities does not hurt performance in other areas. Experiencing Many Benefits ŕMirroring Other Results Results were similar to other multiyear evaluations of reform programs integrating the arts into the basic school curriculum. The A+ Program in North Carolina, like TETAC, found that the arts could enrich learning environments, promote integrated learning and increase collaboration among school staff.These multi-method, multiyear studies are beginning to build a picture missing from shorter-term, frequently nar- rower examinations of the effects of the arts on student learning.
    • rom the six initial areas of concern, three major questions emerged as the focus of the evaluation: ᖇ How was the TETAC strategy imple- mented, and what has been the impact on the 35 schools and their staffs? ᖈ Has the TETAC approach to instruction, that is CAE, affected student learning in the arts? ᖉ Has CAE affected student learning in other subject areas? Schools found the TETAC strat- egy very chal- lenging to implement but a powerful tool for change. The challenge primarily arose from the strategy’s reliance on guidelines rather than highly prescribed sets of steps and characteristics, but this approach also made the strategy flexible, an essential qual- ity for a national reform program unable to take all local mandates and requirements into consideration. The evaluation built on data gathered through site visits, a survey of teachers and ratings of school-developed curriculum units in the arts. Site Visits Evaluators collected data on project imple- mentation during site visits to all 35 schools in years 2 and 4 and during longer site visits in years 3 and 5 to 11 schools chosen for case studies. The teams, comprising an evaluator and a representative of the regional organiza- tion, used the implementation scale devel- oped for the project (see Table 5, page 47). The implementation scale’s features could be divided roughly into four categories: ᖇ Infrastructure (a leadership team, a strategic plan, a policy for the arts and principal leadership); ᖈ Instructional practices (planning time, curriculum units, pedagogy and assess- ment); ᖉ Supports for instructional practices (personal, material and physical); and ᖊ Connections to the community (fund- ing, parental support and networking). Figure 1 on page 45 illustrates the change in implementation from the second to the fourth year of the project for all schools. The horizontal axis measures the extent of the TETAC implementation, with lower scores indicating lower implementation levels; the vertical axis provides information on the proportion of schools. Taken together, a How Was the Strategy Implemented and What Was the Impact? Data and Findings Behind the Conclusions F
    • 45 curve is created that shows the proportion of schools at each point on the overall implementation scale. The curve on the left shows the distribution of implementation rating scores at the time of the first evalua- tion visit; the curve on the right shows the data for the same schools two years later. A comparison of the curves shows a substan- tial shift toward higher implementation scores. While only a few schools were fully implemented by year 4, most schools made substantial progress. NOTE: To develop these ratings, data from the implementation rating scale were analyzed using Item Response Theory (IRT).Using IRT, difficulty levels were calculated for each element on the scale.Schools were then given overall implementation scale scores using these ratings. FIGURE 1 Program Implementation Scale: Program implementation score distributions at Time One and Time Two
    • When the evaluation started during the second year, evaluators determined that most schools had just begun to learn to use the project’s original curricular approach, Discipline-Based Arts Education. The find- ing surprised the Consortium because many of the schools had participated in DBAE professional development events sponsored during the Getty RIG program. Additionally, many of the schools were selected for the TETAC project because they said they had an advanced understanding of DBAE. After the strategy evolved into CAE, schools experienced more success in implementing the project. By year 4, 1999-2000, the evalua- tors determined CAE was beginning to take hold, though schools varied considerably in adoption of the approach, from a low of 45 to a high of 73 on a scale of 100. Average scores clustered around 41 scale points out of 100 in spring 1998. By the second round of site visits, in spring 2000, score averages clustered around 59 points, an increase of almost 18 points (see Table 4 above). Progress was found for each of the regions, but to different degrees. At one extreme were the schools in the Tennessee region, which showed an average growth more than twice the progress of the sample overall. At the other extreme was Florida, where progress was slight, just 3.6 points out of 100. The evaluators believe the outcomes reflected the way the schools and regional leadership approached the project. Data from the second set of site visits and the IRT analyses also allowed the evaluators to take a look at the relative ease or diffi- culty of implementing each of the imple- mentation scale’s elements (see Table 5, page 47). Difficulty is defined in terms of the extent to which the element was found in the schools. As can be seen when the ele- ments implemented with greater or lesser frequency are examined carefully, there were probably a number of factors, including initial criteria for school selection, politics and motivation, as well as what was com- monly understood as difficulty, that could reasonably influence whether or not a cer- tain feature was found. Regions 1997–1998 1999–2000 Mean Score Mean Score Mean Score Difference California 49.8 65.9 16.0 Florida 41.7 45.3 3.6 Nebraska 35.2 57.9 22.7 Ohio 33.2 52.6 19.4 Tennessee 40.8 73.0 32.3 Texas 45.2 57.1 11.9 Overall average 41.2 58.8 17.6 NOTE: Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding. TABLE 4 Project Implementation Scale: Mean scale scores and differences, overall and by region, for 1997 – 1998 and 1999 – 2000
    • 47 The high ratings for a functioning leader- ship team, a principal committed to the project and sufficient supplies and materials held no surprises. The leadership team: Establishment of a team of administrators and teachers has become routine in today’s school-reform efforts, and most schools would experience no difficulty in setting up a similar team for the TETAC project. In highly-rated schools, the team met regularly, discussing issues such as planning, curriculum, pro- fessional development, resources and par- ent communication. The role of the principal: Support from the principal was considered in school selec- tion. When a principal left, school boards generally considered a candidate’s willing- ness to support TETAC when selecting a new principal. Supplies and materials: As part of the TETAC strategy, schools were given money and assistance in buying reproductions, text- books, trade books and other materials needed to support the arts curriculum and the school’s overall reform plans. The region- al organizations worked hard to make sure the schools had the supplies they needed. Program element IRT Item Difficulty** Teachers evaluated 82.5 Networking with other schools and communities 74.2 Arts program evaluated internally by arts staff 73.4 Written sequential curriculum aligned with CAE 66.3 Connection between CAE and other reform efforts 63.7 Student assessment in the arts 63.5 Curriculum planning for collaboration across content areas 62.2 Instructional practices use mixture of inquiry-based and traditional 60.3 Strategic plan 50.9 Technology used for arts instruction 50.4 Partnerships 48.8 Policy for arts instruction 44.7 Parental outreach and communication 41.8 Written units aligned with CAE 41.5 Funds for the arts 41.5 School/classroom arts displays 36.6 Vision of arts role 32.6 Materials (supplies, textbooks, prints, etc.) 29.3 Role of the principal 27.7 Leadership team 26.1 * Items are ordered from most difficult to least difficult program element. ** Partial credit IRT item threshold level, when calibrated using an N(50, 15) population metric. NOTE 1: Calculated using IRT analyses. NOTE 2: Two elements on the original scale were discarded after initial analyses because they showed little systematic variation over time and violated the requirement of the IRT analytic method of being part of a unidimensional scale. TABLE 5 Project Implementation Scale: Scale elements ordered by difficulty level*
    • The hardest elements to implement — teacher evaluation, networking with other schools and communities and internal eval- uation of the program — represented activi- ties relatively unfamiliar to the schools. Teacher evaluation: Very few schools even attempted to evaluate teachers in the arts. To be rated highly, a school had to include this facet in its formal approach to teacher evaluation or have an ongoing program of arts evaluation. Schools noted evaluation was a very sensitive area and that placing additional criteria on teachers in only one school of many in a district raised serious political issues. Networking with other schools: For a high rating, schools needed relationships with a solid cadre of other schools. Geographic dispersion stood as one barrier. In addition, no resources existed to finance meetings or visits between schools. The yearly regional meetings and the one national meeting were too limited to sustain collaboration or foster the development of a true “community of learners.” Internal evaluation of the arts program: To be rated highly, schools needed to per- form a comprehensive evaluation of their arts program and how it related to other subject areas within the curriculum. Schools rarely had the time or the experience to undertake these evaluations. Schools also found the elements that form the backbone of the TETAC strategy — cur- riculum planning and integrating the pro- gram across general school reform — rela- tively difficult. No one considered the results surprising because the two elements required considerable effort. But because of their importance, the Consortium thought educators interested in advancing CAE would recognize the challenge and place a priority on supporting them. Because of the diversity of the schools, the evaluators broke out the results demograph- ically and found the data encouraging. Of special interest was the relationship between socioeconomic status and implementation. As a proxy for socioeconomic status, the evaluators used the percentage of students participating in the free and reduced-price lunch program. Schools with the most youngsters receiving subsidized lunches started at a lower level and ended at a lower level than the others, but they registered the same level of improvement. Schools serving both wealthy and needy populations grew considerably from their participation in the TETAC project.
    • 49 Figure 2 below demonstrates this relation- ship. The horizontal axis shows the per- centage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch. The vertical axis indi- cates the change in implementation rate. As the flat line on the graphic shows, there is no relationship between changes in per- centage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch and changes in extent of implementation. Through two extra visits, the evaluators collected additional details about program implementation at the 11 case-study schools. In most cases, the schools continued to make progress between the fourth and fifth year, with almost half showing significant gains. One school regressed, but other fac- tors might have been at play. The school lost key staff, new staffers were unfamiliar with CAE and the school came under pressure to focus on the basics after a drop in scores on high-stakes state proficiency tests. While implementation was more complete at the end of the project than the beginning (see Table 6, page 50), the year-to-year changes are far from linear, and schools recorded quite different patterns. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 Time One — TimeTwo,1997–1998 — 1999–2000 r=-0.03 Percentage of Free/Reduced Lunch Students ChangeinImplementationScaleScores FIGURE 2 Scatter plot of change in program implementation scale scores and proportion of free/reduced lunch students at Time One and Time Two
    • Teacher Surveys The national evaluators surveyed all teach- ers in the final year of the project, and 79.5 percent responded. Response rates varied widely by schools, ranging from a low of 24 percent to four schools with 100 percent. The survey examined: Ⅲ Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about CAE; Ⅲ Impact of the project on the school and teachers; Ⅲ Barriers to project implementation; Ⅲ Professional development and technical assistance; and Ⅲ Sustainability. Attitudes and Beliefs About CAE The survey indicated that changes occurred in teachers’ attitudes toward the arts, in their ability to integrate the arts (see Table 7, page 51), in their comfort level with the arts, in the ways they worked with one another and in their approaches to teaching. Regardless of the subject area, teachers regularly involved in the project consistently provided more positive responses. Highlights from the survey included: Ⅲ Nearly two-thirds strongly agreed that “arts education should be a basic part of every student’s general education,” with most of the remainder agreeing with the statement. Ⅲ All but 9 percent of teachers endorsed the statement that “the arts can be used suc- cessfully as a focus for curriculum inte- gration in a school.” ID 1997–1998 1998–1999 1999–2000 2000–2001 SW 62 89 93 93 TM 57 74 65 74 CV 44 39 52 69 CC 46 49 61 67 ON 45 51 65 79 FB 45 43 50 61 NK 43 64 61 69 FE 39 38 30 39 TG 37 44 56 41 SS 27 32 56 58 NC 25 32 40 43 TABLE 6 Program Implementation Scale scores for the case- study schools: 1997–1998 through 2000–2001 ņCharacteristics of Survey Participants Ⅲ 58.6 percent were self-contained classroom teachers Ⅲ 19.9 percent were subject-area teachers Ⅲ 7.2 percent were arts specialists Ⅲ 77 percent taught in grades 1 through 5 Ⅲ 40 percent arrived at the school after TETAC began Ⅲ 50 percent of classroom teachers and 70 percent of arts specialists said they used CAE regularly
    • 51 Ⅲ All but 10 percent also thought critical thinking skills could transfer from the arts to other subjects. Ⅲ Classroom teachers remained more ambivalent about the role of arts special- ists. In response to the statement that “arts specialists are the best people to teach art in school,” 26.8 percent of the respondents indicated that they strongly agreed, 28.1 percent that they agreed and 26.6 percent that they disagreed. Not surprisingly, more than half the arts specialists strongly agreed, and an addi- tional 23.5 percent agreed. TABLE 7 Beliefs about arts-based instruction among respondents in TETAC schools, by type of respondent Belief Strongly Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Arts education should be a basic part of every student’s general education. All respondents 65.5 30.8 2.7 0.2 0.8 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 77.9 21.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 Arts specialists 89.7* 7.4 0.0 0.0 2.9 The arts can be used successfully as a focus for curriculum integration in school. All respondents 48.3 43.1 5.7 1.9 0.9 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 60.8 34.1 2.6 2.6 0.0 Arts specialists 70.6 25.0 0.0 1.5 2.9 Students in CAE programs can learn to transfer the critical thinking skills they gain in the arts to other subjects, such as social studies and language arts. All respondents 51.2 38.8 8.4 0.8 0.7 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 66.2 29.3 4.0 0.6 0.0 Arts specialists 77.9 14.7 4.4 0.0 2.9 Arts specialists are the best people to teach art in school. All respondents 26.8 28.1 15.5 26.6 3.0 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 17.7 23.4 17.4 36.0 5.4 Arts specialists 55.9* 23.5 7.4 11.8 1.5 Arts education is not compatible with state/local testing programs. All respondents 23.7 33.3 33.2 7.7 2.1 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 28.8 33.6 29.1 7.1 1.4 Arts specialists 41.2 26.5 23.5 7.4 1.5 *Arts specialists significantly different from classroom teachers at the 0.05 level of confidence. NOTE 1: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. NOTE 2: Not all schools had a formally certified“arts specialist.”Some respondents identified themselves as“arts specialists”despite lack of formal certification.The evaluators believe the identification stemmed from their role as arts specialists or site coordinators for the school for the TETAC project.In subsequent analyses, respondents were classified in terms of their self-identification. NOTE 3: The category of“all respondents”includes several groups of school-based staff in addition to the two subgroups whose responses are presented here.
    • Respondents also reported changes in their professional practices (see Table 8, page 53): Ⅲ Collaboration in instructional planning changed from 25 percent of the teachers at the start of the project to 73.7 percent at the project’s end; Ⅲ Teachers’ use of units of instruction that integrated the arts with other sub- jects changed from 32.5 percent to 81.5 percent; Ⅲ Teachers’ use of community resources, such as museums, changed from 23.1 percent to 63 percent; and Ⅲ The extent to which teachers saw them- selves as advocates for arts education changed from 50.3 percent to 88.3 percent. The significant differences between arts specialists and classroom teachers that existed at the beginning of the project largely disappeared by the end. The only major difference concerned integration of the arts into other subjects, with classroom teachers who regularly used CAE more fre- quently reporting they presented integrated units than did arts specialists.
    • 53 TABLE 8 Experiences with implementing CAE/DBAE five years ago and today, by type of respondents Experience A. BEGINNING OF PROJECT B. LAST YEAR OF PROJECT Great Moderate Minor Not Great Moderate Minor Not Extent Extent Extent At All Extent Extent Extent At All I collaborate with other faculty to plan instruction that integrates the arts into the general education curriculum. All respondents 7.4 17.6 37.6 37.4 35.5 38.2 21.0 5.3 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 9.8 19.2 37.9 33.0 52.7 37.9 8.9 0.4 Arts specialists 10.3 35.9 43.6 10.3 53.8 38.5 5.1 2.6 I participate in long-range planning efforts to determine ways the school can use the arts as a focus of curriculum integration. All respondents 6.0 16.4 34.5 43.2 33.1 33.5 22.0 11.4 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 7.2 18.1 37.1 37.6 47.5 34.8 14.5 3.2 Arts specialists 10.5 34.2 39.5 15.8 60.5 23.7 15.8 0.0 I teach units that integrate the arts and other subject areas. All respondents 10.3 22.2 38.7 28.8 39.7 41.8 14.7 3.9 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 12.1 23.8 43.0 21.1 57.0 39.9* 3.1 0.0 Arts specialists 23.7 44.7 26.3 5.3 65.8 26.3 7.9 0.0 I use technology to communicate and access information about the arts and to facilitate student art making and art discussions. All respondents 3.3 9.8 29.2 57.8 16.1 34.4 32.2 17.3 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 3.6 10.4 30.2 55.9 19.4 40.5 32.4 7.7 Arts specialists 7.7 17.9 33.3 41.0 35.9 28.2 23.1 12.8 I make use of available community arts resources to support instruction. All respondents 6.0 17.1 37.8 39.1 25.6 37.4 27.4 9.6 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 6.3* 20.7 42.3 30.6 35.6 45.0 18.5 0.9 Arts specialists 23.1 25.6 38.5 12.8 51.3 28.2 17.9 2.6 I am an advocate for arts education. All respondents 26.0 24.3 32.2 17.5 64.0 24.3 8.9 2.9 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 29.1* 25.5 30.5 15.0 80.9 15.9 2.7 0.5 Arts specialists 69.2 20.5 7.7 2.6 89.7 10.3 0.0 0.0 *All differences between beginning and the last year of project significant at the 0.05 level of confidence. NOTE 1: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. NOTE 2: The category of“all respondents”includes several groups of school-based staff in addition to the two subgroups whose responses are presented here.
    • Impacts of the Project on the School and Its Teachers The teachers generally felt that their schools were moderately to very successful in most areas examined (see Table 9 above). They reported the greatest success in: Ⅲ Using the arts to make connections across subject areas; Ⅲ Providing the materials and supplies needed for project implementation; and Ⅲ Developing curriculum units consistent with the guidelines provided by the TETAC project. They felt their schools were least successful in: Ⅲ Integrating technology into the arts program; and Ⅲ Providing adequate time for planning an integrated arts program. Responses to this series of questions showed few differences by teachers’ role or level of involvement in the project. The only excep- tion was a significant difference between involved and uninvolved teachers over use of the arts to make connections across subject areas and providing materials and supplies. The regularly involved classroom teachers TABLE 9 Respondents’ beliefs about the success of their school’s art education program in achieving various goals. How successful is your school at… Very Moderately Minimally Not at All Successful Successful Successful Successful Using the arts to make connections across subject areas in the curriculum 51.3 40.2 8.2 0.3 Providing the materials and supplies needed for program implementation 52.6 38.3 7.7 1.5 Providing adequate time for planning an integrated arts education program 18.6 43.5 30.2 7.8 Integrating the TETAC project with other reform initiatives 30.1 48.7 17.5 3.7 Assessing student achievement in the arts 26.6 50.1 20.0 3.3 Integrating technology into the arts program 23.1 43.9 26.8 6.3 Providing time for ongoing professional development in CAE 39.7 39.4 17.3 3.6 Setting standards for arts instruction and achievement that reflect district, state or national standards 40.8 37.7 18.2 3.3 Developing curriculum units consistent with the TETAC Curriculum Guidelines 47.1 39.4 11.5 2.0 Assessing teacher performance in delivering arts instruction 26.7 45.4 22.7 5.2 NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding.
    • 55 felt their schools were very successful a sig- nificantly greater percentage of the time — 64.9 percent vs. 37.1 percent with integra- tion and 58.5 percent vs. 35.6 percent with materials. The evaluators also examined the relation- ship between teachers’ reports of project implementation and the ratings from the project implementation scale. The examina- tion focused on three survey items: Ⅲ Project goals met or the extent to which various programmatic features such as assessing students in the arts and devel- oping curriculum units were successfully put into action; Ⅲ Changes in teachers’ practices, such as collaborating with others, teaching integrated units and advocating arts education; and Ⅲ Other implementation scale elements, such as a leadership team, a strategic plan and student assessment in the arts. As shown in Table 10 below, the teachers’ responses indicated relatively significant and strong correlations among the three. Teachers who felt their school had attained TETAC’s goals reported substantial evidence of specific changes in teachers’ practices. Correlations between the survey’s measures of implementation and the scores on the implementation scale also showed a significant relationship between goals met and changes in teachers’ practices, though the absolute magnitude of the correlation was lower, a finding probably attributable to several factors: Ⅲ The scale covered items not included in the survey questions; Ⅲ The scale was filled out by an observer external to the school; and Ⅲ The survey was conducted in year 5, while the implementation data came from year 4. These correlations suggest that regardless of the data collection methods used, esti- mates of schools’ progress were relatively consistent. TABLE 10 Correlations among selected teacher survey items and ratings on the project implementation scale Survey Item Program Teacher Program Average of Implementation Goals Met Practices Elements Present Survey Items Rating Scale Program goals met 1.00 Teacher practices 0.48* 1.00 Program elements present 0.52* 0.50* 1.00 Average of survey items 0.84* 0.80* 0.80* 1.00 Program Implementation Scale 0.37* 0.44* 0.20 0.42* 1.00 *Statistically significant at the 0.05 level of confidence. NOTE: The unit of analysis is the school.The IRT data used in the correlation were estimated by using ALL teachers responding from a school to get school mean.
    • BEGINNING OF TETAC LAST YEAR OF TETAC POST-TETAC Barrier Major or Minor Major or Minor Major or Minor Moderate or None Moderate or None Moderate or None Access to arts materials and resources for creating artworks All respondents 67.8 32.2 36.7 63.4 69.6 30.5 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 72.8* 27.2 30.4 69.6 67.4 32.6 Arts specialists 57.9 42.2 47.7 52.3 71.9 28.1 Demands of other programs (e.g., Title 1, Urban Systemic Initiative, Coalition of Essential Schools) All respondents 44.7 55.3 41.8 58.3 87.7** 12.3 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 42.1 57.8 36.3 63.8 88.7** 11.3 Arts specialists 52.5 47.5 46.0 54.0 92.2** 7.8 Support from administrators All respondents 33.6 66.4 26.7 73.2 54.1** 45.9 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 33.4 66.7 24.1* 75.9 49.3** 50.7 Arts specialists 37.5 62.5 38.5 61.5 65.2** 34.8 Support from other teachers All respondents 44.7 55.2 28.5 71.5 67.5** 32.6 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 45.5 54.5 23.9 76.1 64.5** 35.5 Arts specialists 52.5 47.5 33.8 66.2 77.3** 22.7 Support from parents All respondents 34.0 65.9 25.0 75.0 51.4** 48.6 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 22.0 78.0 22.0 78.0 46.3** 53.7 Arts specialists 38.5 61.5 22.7 77.3 53.1** 46.8 Existing state/district testing and assessment mandates All respondents 52.4 47.6 53.2 46.8 85.1** 14.9 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 53.3 46.7 50.6 49.4 88.0** 12.0 Arts specialists 40.0 60.0 43.1 56.9 86.4** 13.6 *Indicates a significant difference at the 0.05 level of confidence between arts specialists and classroom teachers who regularly use CAE. **Indicates a significant difference at the 0.05 level of confidence from the beginning of TETAC to the continuation period. NOTE 1: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. NOTE 2: The category of“all respondents”includes several groups of school-based staff in addition to the two subgroups whose responses are presented here. TABLE 11 Respondents’ reports of barriers to implementation at the beginning of TETAC and at the end of TETAC and the potential for each to be a barrier to program continuation, by type of respondents
    • 57 Barriers to Implementation The survey also asked teachers about barri- ers to implementation (see Table 11, page 56) at the beginning of TETAC, the last year of TETAC and after the project ended. Relatively few differences existed between arts specialists and classroom teachers in any of the three time periods. In addition, similar patterns emerged across all groups: Barriers were seen as moderately high before the TETAC project, with support from parents and administrators being the major excep- tions; then substantially reduced by the end of the TETAC project; and dramatically increased after the project. With the exception of access to arts materi- als and resources for creating artworks, respondents reported a significant increase in the strength of the barriers between the project’s beginning and aftermath. Respondents considered demands of other programs or state and district assessment requirements as the most threatening barri- ers to continuation of the program. Professional Development and Technical Assistance The Consortium offered a limited number of national professional development and technical assistance services for mentors and the schools’ leaders, while the regional offices provided the bulk of the services. Expanding from the initial offering of only summer seminars, the organizations eventu- ally provided leadership weekends, credit- bearing graduate courses and workshops. Technical assistance came from mentors working with the schools individually as well as together. Over time, the package of services evolved differently in each region. The evaluators attempted to explore the value of the different offerings, but the responses to the teacher survey offered little guidance about the relative effectiveness of the different approaches (see Table 12 above). Generally, less than half the respondents reported participating in any of the activi- ties, a reflection, the evaluators believe, of the high turnover in teachers. Because the TABLE 12 Teachers’ participation in professional development sponsored by the regional organization, and degree to which the training prepared teachers for project implementation Received training? Degree to which the training assisted you with project implementation Type of activity Yes No Great Moderate Minor Not at all Extent Extent Extent Regional training institute 46.6 53.4 57.9 35.7 6.4 0.0 Regional leadership institute/academy 26.3 73.7 64.3 33.0 2.3 0.5 Regional graduate course or other instruction 42.6 57.4 54.9 37.1 6.9 1.1 Other regional-sponsored activity 29.5 70.5 59.1 30.4 9.4 1.2 In-school workshop from mentor 69.4 30.6 46.8 41.3 11.2 0.7 Individual coaching provided by mentor 42.8 57.2 59.4 32.7 6.8 1.1 Observation of demonstration lesson from mentor 50.6 49.4 55.9 35.0 8.4 0.7 Other mentor activity 19.5 80.5 64.5 26.2 6.5 2.8 NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding.
    • Consortium did not anticipate the problem, it did not develop a national strategy for dealing with teachers new to the TETAC project, leaving the training to regions and individual schools. Sustainability Despite the barriers cited, a large percentage of respondents thought many of the critical elements of the TETAC project would remain in place five years after the project ended, though to a lesser extent (see Table 13 below). TABLE 13 Perceptions of the future of program elements, by type of respondents Element will be present 1 year Element will be present 5 years from the end of project from the end of project All Arts Classroom All Arts Classroom Program element Respondents* Specialists TeachersWho Respondents Specialists TeachersWho Regularly Regularly Use CAE Use CAE Arts materials/resources 96.5 100.0 96.8 86.7 86.5** 87.4 Planning time for arts-integrated instruction 76.3 81.0 78.0 55.7 63.4 59.4** Arts-related professional development 92.3 92.3 94.7 75.9 83.3 78.6** Arts leadership 95.5 95.7 95.8 79.3 71.7** 81.1** Arts-integrated instruction 98.5 98.0 99.6 93.6 87.5 95.3 Inquiry-based instruction 96.4 95.5 98.6 93.0 90.7 94.2 Strategic plan for the arts 94.2 94.4 93.8 77.8 70.6** 80.0** Arts-integrated curriculum unit development 95.1 91.1 96.7 82.5 72.1** 83.7** Students assessed in the arts 93.5 94.1 95.7 80.6 78.8 85.2** *Only respondents who said 1) this element was currently present, and 2) the element was very critical were asked to respond to this question. **Indicates a significant difference at 0.05 level between predictions for one year and five years from the end of the project. NOTE: The category of “all respondents”includes several groups of school-based staff in addition to the two subgroups whose responses are presented here.
    • 59 Ratings of Curriculum Units In year 3, evaluators began to examine cur- riculum units that the schools produced based on the TETAC guidelines. The Consortium originally planned to provide standard units to all schools, but the system proved unworkable because of the different requirements that local and state authorities placed on each school. The Consortium then developed guidelines to help schools create their own curricula based on CAE. The guidelines focused on five areas — foun- dations, content, instruction, assessment and design — that outlined a process of thinking for guiding curriculum develop- ment or adaptation. Curriculum units were collected in the sum- mer of 1999, when the guidelines were just being introduced; the summer of 2000, after the schools had received training on the guidelines’ meaning and use; and the sum- mer of 2001, at the end of the project, after schools received training on the founda- tions and assessment areas. Analyses show a clear and steady progression in the quality of the units (see Table 14 above). ĮTETAC Curriculum Guidelines Rating Criteria Foundations: The extent that the units addressed enduring ideas around which instruc- tion in the arts could be meaningfully integrated with other core subject areas. Content: The adequacy, depth and logical coherence the units showed in addressing the four arts disciplines: art history, aesthetics, art production and art criticism. Instruction: The extent to which the instruc- tional activities were of high quality and appeared likely to actively engage students. Assessment: The quality of the assessment activities in terms of structure and alignment with the important ideas. Design: The extent to which coherence of the sequencing of lessons and clarity of relation- ships among concepts was evident. TABLE 14 Ratings of curriculum units overall and by criteria for all schools using a scale of 0 to 4 Year Overall RATING CRITERIA Rating Foundations Content Instruction Assessment Design 1999 1.9 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.8 2000 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.2 2.7 3.0 2001 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.2 3.5
    • Closing Thoughts on Question 1 TETAC was a complex project, incorporat- ing a variety of implementation features, some organizational, some managerial and some instructional. Looking across the schools, three elements seemed to be critical to progressive implementation: Ⅲ Adaptation or adoption of tools for teaching arts-integrated instruction; Ⅲ Strong leadership and support for the TETAC project; and Ⅲ The development of a cohesive, collabo- rative staff team focused on developing integrated instruction. The TETAC project provided a set of goals and principles for integrating the arts into the regular school curriculum but offered no definitive CAE curriculum, teachers’ guide or standard support materials. Schools seeking to move from theoretical notions of integration to actual classroom practices struggled with several questions: Ⅲ How do you bring the different subjects together? Ⅲ How do you make the arts a genuine part of the learning experience rather than an illustration or prompt for other subjects? Ⅲ How do you relate the content of the arts-integrated units to evaluation of curriculum standards? Ⅲ How do you assess what is learned, espe- cially in the arts? ķNew Teaching Strategies A California teacher said the TETAC project led her to change her practices radically. Previously, art meant working with crafts and producing“cute things” to commemorate the holidays. She said curricular themes were small and artifi- cial. She would not have offered lessons that meaningfully integrated arts with other disciplines because she lacked knowledge and confidence about art, she said. Through the TETAC capacity-building services, each school’s teachers began working as a team in plan- ning lessons, built their comfort level in integrating the arts into their instruction and increased their understanding and use of inquiry-based instruc- tional approaches. “We started to ask the students more sophisticated questions and got answers that showed they were thinking and analyzing information more actively,” the California teacher said.
    • 61 When teachers could “touch and feel” what an arts-integrated unit looked like, both their comfort levels and their skills advanced. Translating Concepts Into Examples Rather than leaving curriculum develop- ment to each teacher, the more successful schools developed or adapted tools that translated the concepts into concrete exam- ples. For some, the translation from the abstract to the concrete was a direct product of the “how-to” information and analytic processes provided through the TETAC Curriculum Guidelines. In other cases, schools reached a turning point when they adopted a particular text- book series to support an integrated arts- education program. Teachers took the con- crete instructional strategies and models in the textbooks and manuals and adapted them through the guidelines to fit local mandates. Relying on Leadership Additionally, strong leadership was impor- tant for progress. Schools that made the greatest advances generally appointed an individual or group to help others, empha- sized the importance of the project and kept it on course. A wide variety of strategies were effective. Leadership could be provided by the princi- pal, or others could take on this role if they had the principal’s support. In some cases, the arts teacher or a core of committed staff provided the leadership. At other schools, a member of the leadership team at the school provided pivotal help. In several cases, strong leadership outside of the administra- tive office allowed the project to continue unhindered when principals left. In addition, the leadership needed to work with and through others and not dictate terms. One of the lesser success stories of the TETAC project involved a school where the principal essentially dominated the project, making all major decisions and ceding little control or initiative to others. Changing School Culture Successful outcomes also reflected a cul- tural change at the school, where teaching evolved from an isolated individual event to a collaboration with teachers drawing on each others’ strengths. Planning, preparing and carrying out a truly high-quality cur- riculum unit was virtually impossible for a single teacher. Many forces worked against collaboration. Some teachers found giving up the inde- pendence of working alone difficult. The teachers who did want to work together encountered problems scheduling the time because of a variety of other demands they faced. However, the successful TETAC schools found a way to overcome the barrier, bringing team members together.
    • To examine the impact of TETAC on learning in the arts, the national evaluators focused on assessing the change in performance of two cohorts, or groups, of students. The first cohort of students in the case-study schools was assessed in the spring of the third, fourth and fifth grades (see Table 15, page 63). The second group was tested in the spring of the third and fourth grades (see Table 16, page 63). The national evalua- tors found students from schools that showed greater progress on the implementa- tion rating scale learned the arts quicker than those in programs with less change. Data for students followed from grades 3 to 5 showed that a change of one standard deviation in project implementation led to a change of 15 percent in the learning rate on the arts assessment. Equally important, all students regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnicity or gender showed increases in visual arts knowledge and skills after participating in a well-imple- mented program. Did the TETAC Approach To Curriculum Affect Learning in the Arts? ‘‘I’ve had students write about art all through the TETAC project, since I’m a language arts teacher.The difference in their writing is inter- esting. Before the project, a student writing to an artist would ask such questions as,‘How many sculptures have you done? Can you send us an example? Here’s my phone num- ber.’Now when I do this writing exercise, I get much more complex questions, such as,‘When you start your work do you know what you’re doing or do you just go along?’” A Tennessee teacher
    • 63 Case-study Number 1999 2000 2001 Gr.5-Gr.3 Gr.5-Gr.4 Gr.4-Gr.3School of Students Gr.3 Mean Gr.4 Mean Gr.5 Mean SW 51 261 276 302 42* 26* 15** TM 31 265 281 296 31* 15** 16** CV 48 247 254 284 38* 30* 8 FB 41 235 261 276 41* 15** 26* ON 24 226 253 274 48* 21** 27** CC 38 255 255 271 15** 16** 0 SS 49 230 258 266 35* 8* 28** TG 12 227 229 257 30* 28** 1 NK 29 212 241 255 43* 14** 29* FE 19 225 240 248 23* 8 16 Total 342 241 259 277 35* 18* 16* *Significant at the 0.01 level of confidence. **Significant at the 0.05 level of confidence. NOTE:The scale has a mean of 250 and a standard deviation of 50. Case-study Number 2000 2001 Gr.4-Gr.3 Sig.P School of Students Gr.3 Mean Gr.4 Mean Gr.4-Gr.3 CV 47 231 279 48 0.000 SW 51 241 269 28 0.000 FB 51 231 262 31 0.000 CC 38 248 261 13 0.094 TM 45 244 260 16 0.010 SS 48 235 252 17 0.008 FE 34 222 249 27 0.005 NK 32 215 241 26 0.014 ON 40 214 240 26 0.003 TG 33 210 232 21 0.007 Total 419 230 256 26 0.000 TABLE 15 Cohort 1 mean scale scores on the TETAC Visual Arts Assessment Instrument: True longitudinal sample for case-study schools’ students taking assessments in grades 3, 4 and 5 TABLE 16 Cohort 2 mean scale scores on the TETAC arts assessment: True longitudinal sample for case-study schools’ students taking assessments in grades 3 and 4
    • Case-study School Reading and Art Math and Art (R-Square) (R-Square) ON 0.013 0.007 CC. 0.023 0.091 TG 0.116 0.000 NK 0.020 0.045 SW 0.024 0.003 SS 0.003 0.001 CV 0.071 0.075 NOTE 1: Correlation calculated using Pearson-Product Moment Correlation. NOTE 2: Four of the 11 case-study schools were eliminated from the chart because they changed math and reading assessments partway through the project. Many pro- ponents of arts-inte- grated instruction argue that adding a strong arts program has the additional benefit of enhancing learning in other subjects. To assess whether this was occurring in the TETAC schools, the evalua- tion examined change in a wide range of indicators that could show improved teach- ing and learning. The evaluators found little evidence that CAE affected school-level outcomes such as attendance, suspensions, dropout rates or test scores in mathematics, reading and writing. Examination of indi- vidual test score data in reading and mathe- matics also showed no correlation between change in performance on the arts assess- ment and change in performance in other areas tested (see Table 17 below). Did the TETAC Approach To Curriculum Affect Learning in Other Subjects? TABLE 17 Cohort 1 students’ relationship between changes in cognitive achievement (reading and math) and changes in art, by school
    • 65 However, teachers involved with the project strongly believe that the CAE approach had a broad impact on students’ thinking. They said the project helped students make con- nections across subject and content areas, think more creatively, write more fluently and ask better questions. They also thought the project increased their students’ motiva- tion (see Table 18, page 66). Data from the standardized tests were not available for item analyses or to measure the extent the tests addressed the skills the teachers cited. Future evaluations of whether a transfer of skills occurs should take a closer look at the standardized assessment tests to better determine their alignment with the types of skills and knowledge that teachers iden- tified. In addition, evaluators should develop an instrument to specifically explore the relationships between learning in the arts and other subjects. A research rather than an evaluation mode would be better suited to the assessment, with small- scale studies developed. ‘‘When I first got to my school, students reacted to art with either‘liking’it or‘not liking’it. Because of the TETAC project, they now talk more about what is in the artworks, exchange information about what is being shown, give helpful criti- cism and ask others for assistance when they’re having a problem.The students are more able to say something and back it up with evidence.” A Texas teacher
    • TABLE 18 Impact of the TETAC project on students’ abilities in general as reported by respondents in TETAC schools EXTENT OF IMPACT THUS FAR Students in schools using the Great Moderate Minor Not at AllCAE approach can... Extent Extent Extent Develop and evaluate alternative solutions to problems All respondents 23.6 50.7 23.0 2.6 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 29.0 55.6 14.2 1.2 Arts specialists 39.0 49.2 11.9 0.0 Work cooperatively with others All respondents 42.6 44.0 11.8 1.6 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 51.1 44.0 4.4 0.6 Arts specialists 54.8 38.7 4.8 1.6 Understand how the information and skills learned in school relate to the “real world” All respondents 35.4 47.3 15.4 1.9 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 44.6 46.0 9.1 0.3 Arts specialists 41.7 48.3 10.0 0.0 Have increased motivation to learn and engage in instructional activities All respondents 41.4 42.5 14.3 1.8 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 50.9 41.0 7.8 0.3 Arts specialists 51.7 43.3 5.0 0.0 Make connections across different subject or content areas All respondents 45.6 40.5 12.6 1.3 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 57.2 39.0 3.5 0.3 Arts specialists 70.5* 24.6 4.9 0.0 Express themselves through writing more effectively than students not taught through CAE/DBAE All respondents 40.4 38.5 17.4 3.7 Classroom teachers who regularly use CAE 48.9 39.8 9.8 1.5 Arts specialists 69.6* 23.2 7.1 0.0 *Art specialists significantly different from classroom teachers at the 0.05 level of confidence. NOTE 1: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. NOTE 2: The category of“all respondents”includes several groups of school-based staff in addition to the two subgroups whose responses are presented here.
    • he five-year evolution of the TETAC strategy encompasses a story of experimentation, lessons and work begun but not finished as time and money ran out. By sharing the TETAC story and findings, the Consortium hopes to trigger additional experimentation and research that contin- ues to build on this work. Success was achieved on many levels: Ⅲ The Comprehensive Arts Education approach is showing great promise for improving learning in the arts and inte- grating the arts into the core curriculum. Ⅲ The TETAC strategy provides effective approaches for changing the culture of a school and improving overall instruction while advancing the status of the arts in the regular curriculum. These approaches — including curriculum, professional development and assessment — are not only compatible with general trends in school reform, but they are flexible and adaptable to all types of school mandates and environments, including the inner city. Ⅲ The TETAC Visual Arts Assessment Instrument provides a prototype for devel- oping tests to measure learning in the other art forms. Additionally, the quantita- tive data bank documenting student learn- ing in the arts gathered from the TETAC Visual Arts Assessment Instrument offers a base for other studies. The lessons fell into two major categories: advancing the arts in the regular school curriculum and administering a national school-reform initiative in the arts. Lessons Learned From theTETAC Project T
    • 69 he primary challenge for the TETAC project involved advancing the arts in the core curriculum when, in most cases, schools considered them “frills” not equal to the “real” academics, such as math and sci- ence. The movement toward high-stakes proficiency testing amplified the problem. In many TETAC locations, communities used the test results to grade schools, and low scores often brought corrective or even punitive actions against the administration and teaching staff. The more “high-stakes” the testing situation became, the more a school felt pressured to devote major parts of the school year to basic academics. In the face of this challenge, TETAC’s strate- gies fell into three areas depending on the situation and resources available: Ⅲ Improving instruction in the arts; Ⅲ Integrating the arts into the school cur- riculum; and Ⅲ Changing the school culture to support the arts. The project focused on how to improve the curric- ula and instruction in the arts to increase student learning in the arts and their status with core subject areas. Five major lessons emerged: Curricula in the Arts Must Be Comprehensive Creating art and understanding the arts does not occur in a vacuum. Artists usually look to many areas of knowledge to enhance their ability to realize an idea. Understanding these areas enhances a citi- zen’s experience with the arts. No matter what art form is being taught, students need exposure to a holistic understanding of the arts that not only includes knowledge and skills in creating art but also in the critical, aesthetic and historical and cultural domains of arts inquiry. Instruction in the Arts Is Best Designed Around a Theme Artists and other great thinkers throughout time have pondered and drawn upon endur- ing ideas and themes about life and art in their efforts to create and forge new terri- tory. Organizing inquiry in the arts around enduring ideas guides students in under- standing the philosophical, religious, ethical and social sources that form the foundation of the arts. Use of enduring ideas also pro- vides an overarching guide for aligning instructional activities to assessment. Teachers Need To Use Inquiry-Based Strategies Designing learning experiences that actively engage students in the inquiry and creation Advancing the Arts in the Regular School Curriculum T Improving Instruction in the Arts
    • processes allows youngsters to make mean- ingful real-life connections to the ideas and skills explored. Learning environments in the arts must provide strategies to assist students in developing their own questions and in guiding them in their own inquiries. The experiences must offer models and opportunities for thinking, discussing, writ- ing and creating based on the understand- ings being formed. In addition, the learning experience must provide students with the tools for reflecting upon and assessing their own and others’ work and for making con- nections to life beyond the classroom. Teachers Need To Know the Arts and Inquiry-Based Techniques Support for the arts as an integral part of the core curriculum grows among general classroom teachers and administrators in accordance with their knowledge of the arts. Additionally, learning environments in the arts are enhanced when both general class- room teachers and arts specialists continue to deepen their understanding of the arts and advance their ability to use inquiry- based teaching strategies. Student Learning in the Arts Must Be Quantified In advancing the case for arts in the core curriculum, projects need to build quantita- tive databases to prove the importance of the arts in education. This means creating and administering standardized tests that can quantify student learning in the arts, as has been done in many other core subject areas. The TETAC project explored ways to synchro- nize education in the arts with general curriculum reform, particularly with interdisciplinary studies, which attempt to make students adept at using cross-disciplinary approaches to solve real-life problems. Three primary lessons emerged: Learning in the Arts Must Be Meaningful When integrating the arts into multidisci- plinary learning experiences, schools tend to use them as the vehicle for learning in other subject areas, especially areas assessed by local proficiency tests. An example of this would be using arts activities to increase a student’s achievement in reading. While this approach may give the arts more visibility, it does little to advance the important place of the arts in education. The arts in and of themselves impart important knowledge and skills that need to be a part of the core curriculum. The Status of Arts Specialists Must Be Elevated To assure that the arts are incorporated meaningfully, arts specialists can play a vital role in collaboration with classroom teachers but only if they become key members of a school’s curriculum planning efforts. If a school places the specialists on the same plane as classroom teachers, they can serve as resources and mentors for their colleagues. Integrating the Arts Into the School Curriculum
    • 71 Better Tools Must Be Developed To Access Arts Learning in Integrated Settings Assessing the impact on student learning becomes a challenge in an integrated-cur- riculum setting. Most local proficiency tests fail to assess learning in the arts or the most valued skills and knowledge exhibited by students in integrated learning situations, such as critical thinking or transference of skills. Additionally, no standardized test for assessing arts learning exists. Both quantita- tive and qualitative assessment tools and strategies must be advanced for evaluating learning in the arts. The TETAC project looked at ways to make the school culture supportive of the arts in the curriculum. Many of the strategies explored in this area extend beyond the arts to embrace general reform projects with proven success. Changing a school’s culture means changing the way a school conducts the business of educating students and improving their learning environments. Five major lessons emerged: Collaborative Planning Must Be Nurtured Educators traditionally learn to work as individuals in developing and implement- ing learning activities in their classrooms, but today the trend is toward collaborative curriculum planning, especially in inte- grated-curriculum settings. Collaborative environments offer arts specialists unique opportunities to become a genuine part of curriculum planning efforts, allowing them to advance understandings about the importance of learning in the arts among their colleagues. Additionally, these collaborations allow arts specialists to deeply understand the issues and pressures facing their schools and how the arts might help solve them. For collabo- ration to be productive and effective, though, it needs to be nurtured and supported. Changing the School Culture To Support the Arts
    • Self-Reflection Is Vital for Improving Professional Practice Another trend in changing the way schools conduct business involves encouraging educa- tors to continually improve their professional practice, especially in the classroom. A vital tool for accomplishing this goal has been nurturing reflective practices among educa- tors that give them timely and relevant input concerning the effectiveness of the learning experiences they have developed and imple- mented. Though self-reflective in nature, these assessment practices benefit school change when teachers engage in them collab- oratively with colleagues throughout the school. To be productive and effective, educa- tors need training in self-reflective strategies. Students Must Be Considered Collaborators The learning environment has traditionally been viewed as a teacher-orchestrated domain. However, current thinking empha- sizes an integral role for students, challeng- ing schools and teachers to view them as collaborators in the learning process, both in its design and realization. This shift in thinking emphasizes the use of student- driven inquiry in the classroom and asks the teacher to shift roles from leader to men- tor/coach. Assessment of Student Learning Must Be More Holistic Reliance on traditional proficiency tests to the exclusion of a holistic evaluation pro- gram limits the school’s ability to truly understand what affects student achieve- ment. Holistic approaches not only com- prise a diverse package of evaluative tools
    • 73 hile this report has focused on effective strategies for advancing the arts in the nation’s schools, little has been told about the administration of a project of this complexity. Implementing a collabora- tively governed national school-reform initia- tive can amplify problems or create additional barriers that might not surface in reform efforts focused on one locale or driven by a single organization. This situation also can provide opportunities not usually afforded local, single-organization projects. The TETAC project was developed and implemented by six independent regional organizations and overseen by a national steering committee comprising the organiza- tions’ directors. The goal of the steering com- mittee was to govern the project through collaborative processes and by consensus. This was easier said than done. The commit- tee members learned several valuable lessons concerning collaborative governance that could assist others in national reform efforts. Develop a Common Understanding of a Project’s Purposes and Goals Soon after hundreds of school-based stake- holders joined the initiative, the steering committee realized that many of the partici- pants were interpreting key concepts differ- ently. The more geographically dispersed and diverse the group of stakeholders, the greater the need to assure a common understanding of the project’s goals and purposes. To address this problem, the committee had groups of key participants work to articulate common understandings to guide stakehold- ers as the project progressed. These common understandings were communicated to all participants and provided the foundation for the project’s professional development and evaluation efforts. Administering a National School- Reform Initiative in the Arts W but also require development of more com- prehensive criteria for measuring student learning. To achieve a diverse package of evaluative tools, schools could couple traditional pro- ficiency tests with student observations, portfolio reviews, student-generated assess- ment or reflective journals that more com- prehensively assess higher-order thinking skills and knowledge transference. Effective Professional Improvement Efforts Must Be Ongoing and Focused A teacher’s or administrator’s professional growth must be envisioned as long term, directed and appropriate to a school’s edu- cational goals. It must also expand under- standing of the larger realm of school and curricular reform to allow for more thoughtful planning and facilitation of change to occur.
    • Design Flexible Strategies That Can Accommodate Local Mandates And Needs The 35 schools participating in the TETAC project represented the diverse range of backgrounds and needs typically found throughout the nation’s schools. This diver- sity required the strategies for realizing the project’s goals and expectations to accom- modate myriad local needs and educational mandates. The challenge in using flexible and adaptable strategies was in maintaining a recognizable commonality among the sites’ perceptions of the goals and outcomes. Expect the Funders’Policies And Practices To Affect a Project Traditionally, funders have been viewed solely as sponsors. However, the expecta- tions and influence of the TETAC project’s national funders played a significant role in the development and implementation of the project, especially because of their differing policies and practices. While the stakehold- ers have anecdotal information to share about this aspect, formal documentation was not collected. Studying the impact of funder policies and practices on a project’s success would be useful to the field, espe- cially in light of the more active role many funders are adopting. Decentralized Governance Structures Require Centralized Management Management and governance of the TETAC initiative began as a shared leadership effort among six regional organizations. During the project’s first year, they realized this decentralized approach was unfeasible for the management of day-to-day operations. As the second project year began, the Consortium established a centralized national office and hired a project manager. This new structure freed the governance committee members to focus their efforts on the larger oversight issues facing the project and the regional needs of their indi- vidual organizations. The Evaluation and Evaluators Must Be Part of a Project’s Planning The evaluation component of the TETAC project was initially envisioned as a data gathering and documentation effort. Due to this belief, the development of the project’s evaluation plan and selection of the evalua- tor became two of many tasks that were to be accomplished during the first year of implementation. However, the articulation of the evaluation plan and the identification of the evaluator became pivotal to the over- all project implementation because they facilitated the assessment, definition and evolution of the other key project elements, particularly the curriculum and capacity- building components. The development of the evaluation compo- nent became a de facto self-reflective process that enabled the leadership to construct a more fully integrated implementation effort.
    • National Arts Education Consortium Members And the Project Schools They Served Consortium Memberz California Consortium for Arts Education at the Sacramento County Office of Education, Sacramento, California Schools Carriage Elementary School, Citrus Heights, California Valley Oak Elementary School, Fresno, California Sheldon High/T.R. Smedberg Middle School, Sacramento, California Woodland High School, Woodland, California Community Magnet Elementary School in Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California Grand View Elementary School, Manhattan Beach, California Consortium Memberz Florida Institute for Art Education at Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida Schools Eastside Elementary School, Lake City, Florida Williston Elementary School, Williston, Florida Florida State University School, Tallahassee, Florida Kate Sullivan Elementary School, Tallahassee, Florida Buck Lake Elementary School, Tallahassee, Florida Francis K. Sweet Elementary Magnet School, Fort Pierce, Florida Consortium Memberz Prairie Visions: Nebraska Consortium for Arts Education at the Nebraska Arts Council, Omaha, Nebraska Schools Columbus High School, Columbus, Nebraska Bryan Elementary School, Lexington, Nebraska Clinton Elementary School, Lincoln, Nebraska Tara Heights Elementary, Papillion, Nebraska Kenwood Elementary, Kearney, Nebraska Valley Elementary School, Valley, Nebraska Appendix A
    • 77 Consortium Memberz Ohio Partnership for the Visual Arts at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Schools Newton D. Baker School of Arts, Cleveland, Ohio Elida High School, Elida, Ohio Fair Arts IMPACT Alternative Elementary School, Columbus, Ohio Windermere Elementary School, Upper Arlington, Ohio Malabar Middle School, Mansfield, Ohio Consortium Memberz Southeast Center for Education in the Arts at The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, Tennessee Schools Lusher Alternative Elementary School, New Orleans, Louisiana Mandeville Middle School, Mandeville, Louisiana Mary Lin Elementary School, Atlanta, Georgia Browns Mill Elementary School, Lithonia, Georgia Wallace A. Smith Elementary School, Ooltewah, Tennessee West Side Magnet School, La Grange, Georgia Consortium Memberz North Texas Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts at University of North Texas, Denton, Texas Schools Mitchell Elementary School, Plano, Texas Oakhurst Elementary School, Fort Worth, Texas Shady Brook Elementary School, Bedford, Texas Greenbriar Elementary School, Fort Worth, Texas North Hi Mount Elementary, Fort Worth, Texas E.M. Daggett Middle School, Fort Worth, Texas
    • TETAC National Funders TETAC Regional Funders Private J. Paul Getty Trust The Annenberg Foundation Public The Ohio State University California Private Bonner Family Foundation California Consortium for Arts Education Kingsley Art Club Rufina Pease Memorial Fund Rumsey Indian Rancheria Tower Records Valley Media, Inc. Wells Fargo Foundation Public California Lottery Fund for Education Clovis Unified School District Fresno County Office of Education Sacramento County Office of Education Florida Private Arthur Vining Davis Foundation Jessie Ball duPont Foundation Marjorie Turnball P. L. Dodge Public Florida Department of Education Florida Division of Cultural Affairs Leon County School System Nebraska Private Cooper Foundation Prairie Visions: Nebraska Consortium for Arts Education Public Nebraska Arts Council Ohio Public Ohio Arts Council The Ohio State University The Ohio State University Board of Regents Tennessee Private Benwood Foundation Lindhurst Foundation Endowed Chair Southeast Center for Education in the Arts Public National Endowment for the Arts Tennessee Higher Education Commission University of Tennessee at Chattanooga University of Tennessee Foundation Texas Private Edward and Betty Marcus Foundation Public Greater Denton Arts Council Texas Commission on the Arts University of North Texas Appendix B
    • 79 Writers Donald J. Killeen, TETAC national program manager TETAC National Steering Committee members: D. Jack Davis, University of North Texas James Hutchens, The Ohio State University Sally McRorie, Florida State University Kim Wheetley, Southeast Center for Education in the Arts KD Kurutz, California Consultancy for Arts Education Marty Skomal, Nebraska Arts Council Hazel Lucas, Browns Mill Elementary School Joy Frechtling, lead evaluator, Westat Donald Perone, The Ohio State University Editing/Production Steege/Thomson Communications Design Margie Politzer Report Credits
    • The National Arts Education Consortium Department of Art Education The Ohio State University 128 North Oval Mall, Room 258 Columbus, Ohio 43210 Telephone: 614.292.5649 Fax: 614.688.4483