Research

1. Status of Elementary Art Education: 1997-2004
Chapman, Laura H. Studies in Art Education 46.2 (Winter 2005): 118-137.
In this article, I portray the status of visual art education in United States public elementary
schools between 1997 and 2004. I report on trends in state policies and interpret data from a
national survey of elementary principals, visual art specialists, and classroom teachers. I also
provide information on public opinion about arts education, and the possible impact on art
education of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Data from this period serve as a
benchmark for tracking shifts in policy and practice as the nation's schools respond to NCLB
mandates for improved scores in reading, mathematics, and science by 2014. My discussion
highlights recurrent themes and contradictions in policy and practice.
In this article, I focus on survey data from multiple sources bearing on visual art education in
elementary schools between 1997 and 2004. This interval of time is significant in that a
standards-based accountability movement, initiated in the early 1980s, has since been
elaborated in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Various surveys cited in this
article document this increasing focus on national standards even as they reveal policies and
practices that marginalize art education.
Art educators are caught in a Catch 22 environment of policy making. On the one hand,
standards-based reforms offer some promise of raising awareness of the arts as a worthy
domain for study. In addition, there may be benefits from greater oversight of art education in
relation to access to instruction and the quality of teaching and learning. These hopes were
expressed in the formulation of national standards in the arts in the mid1990s (Consortium of
National Arts Education Associations, 1994).
On the other hand, NCLB is the most fully developed case of federal micromanaging of
schools in United States history. In exchange for federal funds, NCLB requires schools to
make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) in raising test scores in reading, mathematics, and
science. Annual tests in these subjects are intended to spur improvements so that, by 2014,
95% to 100% of students will score "proficient or above" in all three subjects. Further,
practices must be based on "rigorous" scientific evidence of their efficacy and cost
effectiveness.
Although NCLB does include the arts in a list of core academic subjects, the law does little to
support education in the arts, or foreign language, or the humanities and social studies.
Indeed, since NCLB has been implemented, these neglected subjects have been called the
"the lost curriculum" by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO, 2002) and cited
in a discussion of the "atrophied curriculum" by the Council on Basic Education (2004).
These growing concerns suggest that extraordinary leadership may be necessary to retain and
strengthen school-based studies in art in the next decade (National Art Education Association
[NAEA], 2003a; NAEA, 2003b). In any effort to achieve some balance among studies of the
arts, sciences, and humanities it is politically useful to have some grasp of national patterns in
policy and practice.
I focus on the status of elementary art education for several reasons. First, elementary
instruction influences how later studies are shaped, including the extent to which learning
becomes remedial in the upper grades. Second, there is more detailed information on

2. elementary school policy and practice than for secondary schools. Third, the surveys draw
attention to issues bearing on the role of specialists and classroom teachers in elementary art
education. Part I centers on state policies bearing on all schools, including elementary
schools. Part II offers a closer look at reports from elementary principals, art specialists, and
classroom teachers. Part III is a brief report on public opinion about arts education and recent
developments in relation to NCLB.
Some caveats are necessary. First, there is no uniform national system of distinguishing
between elementary, middle, and secondary schools. Most of the surveys I rely upon assume
that a traditional elementary school encompasses grades 1-6, effectively ignoring middle
school structures that may begin in grades 4 or 5.
Second, many surveys about state policies encompass all of the artsmusic, dance, theater or
drama, and the visual arts. I will focus on the visual arts when disaggregated information is
available. I also give special attention to the differential treatment of art education in schools
with indicators of high and low socio-economic status (SES) based on concentrations of
students who live in poverty (often associated with high and low concentrations of students
who are minorities) because these differences bear on equity in opportunity for learning.1
Third, some reports from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) include
proportions based on other proportions. For example, one table indicates that 27% of
classroom teachers use portfolio-based art assessment. However, only 44% of classroom
teachers conduct any form of art assessment. Thus, the national proportion of classroom
teachers who use this form of assessment is about 12% (NCES, 2002, p. 84). The same NCES
reports assume a typical school year is 44 weeks (NCES, 2002, pp. 17-18). In fact, the typical
school year is 36 weeks (CCSSO, 2002). In order to reflect national patterns in practice, I
have included adjusted proportions such as these throughout my report.2
Finally, the information I supply is statistically significant and/or the most recent available.
Even so, my reliance on survey data from different sources and years means that the overall
portrayal is impressionistic. For example, reports from state administrators may differ from
principals', and both may differ from the reports of teachers. Some incongruities are
inevitable, and some are instructive because perceptions are so different.
Part I: State Policies and Trends
Standards have symbolic importance in the culture of schooling. In the arts, standards express
a social-cultural commitment to at least two principles: (a) the arts are worthy human
achievements, and (b) the arts are sustained across generations when studies in them are
widely available, especially in public schools (Chapman, 1999). In the following discussion, I
focus on access to instruction, state attention to standards, teacher preparation, and student
assessment.
Access and Standards
In 1999-2000, 87% of public elementary schools offered some form of instruction in the
visual arts (NCES, 2002, pp. 6, 20-21). The Arts Education Partnership (AEP) database for
2003-2004 indicates that 48 states have content standards in the arts; but only 20 states
clearly mandate arts education (AEP, 2003). In this respect, state policies do not uniformly
support studies in the arts as a core subject for every student.

3. Teacher Preparation
The CCSSO database for 2002 indicates that, for a middle school license or endorsement
(which may encompass grades 4-6 in elementary school), seven states require a major in the
main subject a teacher is assigned to teach, while ten states permit teaching with a minor
comprised of 18 to 21 semester hours. For an elementary license (including art specialists),
eleven states require a major or minor in at least one field. For a general elementary
certificate, nine states require from 6-12 semester hours of studies in the arts, with about half
of these in a general humanities segment and the other half in methods of teaching (CCSSO,
2002, pp. 33-35). Course requirements in art are minimal for classroom teachers, and
specialists may be certified with no more than a minor in art.
The once common practice of licensure based on graduation from an approved teacher
education program is still present in eleven states for the elementary level. For an initial or
new license, most states now require a passing score on basic skills (40 states) and
pedagogical knowledge (29 states) with fewer (26 states) requiring a test of subject matter
knowledge (CCSSO, 2002, pp. 25-26, 30-32). In addition to this trend of relying on test
scores as indicators of competence, NCLB actively encourages districts to hire college
graduates who bypass a teacher preparation program but pass a test on the subject they will
teach. In this respect, NCLB interprets teaching as a process of transmitting knowledge with
skills in teaching learned on the job. A broad view of educational issues and options in arts
education is unlikely to be nurtured by this kind of entry into teaching (Brewer, 2003).
Student Assessment
In 2003, AEP reported that mandated statewide assessments in the arts were in place, or
under study and development in twelve states. In addition, six states require local arts
assessments of some kind if the arts are taught, with local reports on proficiency forwarded to
state officials. In six states, officials simply recommend local assessments but do not require
them. The majority of state plans call for one assessment in grades 5-8, with four states
planning for a test in the 3rd or 4th grade (AEP, 2003).
Most statewide tests presuppose that districts and schools require grade-to-grade continuity in
instruction, and with high levels of specificity in what is taught at each grade (e.g., Porter,
2002). I know of no state where these conditions are actually met in elementary schools. In
the absence of these conditions it is impossible to determine whether achievement is the
result of instruction in school (as distinct from advantages such as talent, interest, parental
resources), and this is the central question in standards-based accountability, especially under
NCLB (Popham, 2003). Further, under NCLB, no state can offer scores on tests in subjects
such as the arts, humanities, and foreign language in the hope that those scores might enter
into determinations of "adequate yearly progress" (AYP). Only scores in mathematics,
science, and reading/language arts are counted in AYP.
Part II: Elementary Visual Art Education
The following portrait is based on data collected in 1999-2000 by the National Center for
Education Statistics, and bears on instruction in grades 1-6. I begin with information provided
by a sample of elementary school principals whose responses were weighted to provide a
national estimate of policies and practices in approximately 33,000 public elementary schools
(NCES, 2002, p. 3).

4. Reports from Elementary Principals
The NCES survey asked many questions of elementary principals bearing on support for art
education and other aspects of programs in their schools.
Resource Allocations
Over half of elementary schools (56%) have dedicated art rooms with special equipment such
as kilns or worktables. In over a third of schools (36%) art is taught in a regular classroom or
space such as a gymnasium, or cafeteria. Schools with highet concentrations of poverty are
less likely to have a dedicated art room with special equipment, and with a difference of
about 25% relative to more affluent schools. Seventy-eight percent of elementary art
programs operate with full district funding for the regular instructional program. However,
15% rely on outside sources for more than half of their allocated funds for arts education.
Sixty-five percent of schools offer supplementary programs such as field trips and half
sponsor after-school activities in the arts. Field trips are less available in low socio-economic
schools than high SES schools (NCES, 2002, pp. 21, 24). District funding of supplementary
programs ranges from 65% for field trips to 44% for visiting artists (NCES, 2002, pp. 24, 29).
The proportionate contribution of parents and other groups to supplementary programs is
about 44%. Additional funds, about 20%, are obtained from state or federal art or education
grants, especially for visiting artists. District funding appears to be crucial in leveraging
additional support for supplementary programs and some regular programs are sustained by
non-district funds. Overall, patterns of funding reflect differences in community wealth and
commitment to art education.
Perceptions of Support
The reports of principals suggest that there is "strong" support for arts education among
administrators (67%), with less support from classroom teachers (47%), and even less from
parents (39%). In the case of principals in low SES schools, all of these perceptions of
support shift downward. Compared with principals in high SES schools, the disparities in
perceived support are 24 % lower from parents, 16% for classroom teachers, and 14% lower
for administrators. Especially in low SES schools, the perceptions of principals may function
in the manner of a selffulfilling prophecy, lowering efforts to build more positive attitudes
about arts education across the board (NCES, 2002, pp. 35-36).
Explicit Policy Statements
Sixty-eight percent of elementary principals report that their school has a written art
curriculum guide, with 52% reporting the guide is aligned with state or national art standards.
Eighteen percent of principals did not know if their guide was aligned with standards and
10% did not know if it was updated in the last 5 years. Written guides were available in 73%
of high SES schools compared to 60% of low SES schools (NCES, 2002, pp. 22-23). In
relation to standards-based reforms, oversight of the curriculum is especially weak in low
SES schools.
Less than half of schools (45%) include arts education in their mission statements or in their
school improvement plans. At the same time, 38% do have reform initiatives involving the
arts or integrating the arts into the curriculum. Further, these explicit mission statements and

5. arts-based reforms are more common in low SES schools and in schools with a high
proportion of minority students (in both categories by about 10%). These differences suggest
that principals in schools with high enrollments of one or both groups of students may see the
arts as especially appropriate for them. Even so, there is ample evidence that tangible support
for art education is lower in high-poverty schools and in those with many students from
minority groups (NCES, 2002, pp. 31-32).
Access to Instruction with Qualified Teachers
In schools that offer art instruction, 55% have at least one full-time certified teacher of the
visual arts. Others who may offer instruction are classroom teachers (26%), part-time
certified specialists (18%), along with volunteers and artists, each at about 6%. Although
some schools have staffin overlapping roles, schools with a high SES are more likely to have
certified teachers than low SES schools (63% versus 41%) and low SES schools are more
likely to have classroom teachers in charge of instruction than high SES schools (36% versus
18%). These patterns suggest that some arts based reforms are not likely to be coordinated by
specialists or informed by their expertise (NCES, 2002, p. 20).
Seventy-six percent of schools offer instruction for a full year (36 weeks). A typical program
(64% of schools) offers instruction once or twice a week. About 15% offer classes less than
once a week, increasing to 36% of low SES schools and 42% in schools with a high
proportion of students in minority groups. Similarly, in 36% of low SES schools, classroom
teachers are responsible for instruction compared with 18% of high SES schools.
Even so, the amount and duration of insttuction is highly variable in low SES schools. For
example, the national average of schools with artrich programs (visual art classes three or
more times a week) is 12%. Such programs are present in 18% of affluent schools, 24% of
schools with a high proportion of minority students, and 32% of high-poverty schools.
(NCES, 2002, pp. 7, 17-18, 32). Overall, these variations suggest that some arts-based
reforms or arts-rich programs, even if present in low SES schools, are likely to be offered
only by classroom teachers.
Program Oversight by Principals and District Coordinators
About three out of four principals say that they evaluate arts teachers and arts programs the
same way that they assess other teachers and programs. This apparent even-handedness
suggests that assessments focus on general topics (e.g., planning lessons, keeping discipline)
rather than art-specific evaluation. In low SES schools, there is less even-handedness, but the
difference is not easy to explain. Fifty-six percent of principals report that district art
coordinators also have a role in assessment. Since art coordinators are present in 78% of
urban districts, which tend to have a high proportion of low SES schools, sonic principals
may delegate all art-specific evaluations to coordinators. The absence of even-handedness
may also reflect a general pattern of lower oversight of art teachers and programs in low SES
schools, where there are also fewer certified art teachers.
Although 17% of principals report that their school conducts a "standardized assessment of
student achievement in the arts," the reports of art specialists and classroom teachers do not
offet strong support for these claims. It is unknown what principals do regard as a
"standardized assessment" in the arts or whether arts-based reforms (in 38% of schools) are
systematically evaluated (NCES, 2002, pp. 34-35).

6. Perceptions of Art Teacher Voice in School Decisions
About two-thirds of principals (67%) indicate that art specialists have a say about the art
curriculum offered. Slightly more than half of principals (55%) say that specialists have some
voice in allocations of arts funds, and about a third (34%) report that specialists have input on
hiring arts staff. Although 58% of principals report that art specialists participate in sitebased
management or school improvement teams, these reports do not comport with those of
specialists.
In all four of these advisory areas, specialists are less likely to have a voice if they work in
low SES schools-where arts-based reforms are also more frequently reported. Indeed, only
half of principals in low SES schools indicate that art teachers have a voice in the art
curriculum with only 40% having a voice on the use of art funds. The unanswered question is
this: Who does make these decisions if not the specialist? On average, the voice attributed to
specialists in low SES schools is about 14% below the national norm and 22% lower than in
high SES schools (NCES, 2002, pp. 33-34).
Reports from Teachers
In the 1999-2000 NCES survey, visual arts specialists and classroom teachers were asked
about their qualifications and teaching practices. Responses from specialists are based on a
sample from an estimated population of 37,800 elementary art specialists, with 80% full-time
and 20% part-time-a ratio that suggests about 30,240 full-time art specialists are employed in
U.S. elementary schools.
Elementary Visual Art Specialists
About 18% to 19% of teachers who say they are "art specialists" are not certified in art or
qualified by undergraduate training in art or art education. Sixty-three percent have taught art
for ten years or more and two thirds plan to continue teaching for ten years or more. Although
39% of all specialists have a master's degree, only 21% have a master's degree in art
education (NCES, 2002, pp. 66-68). Overall, most specialists are well qualified by formal
training, experienced, and plan to continue teaching (NCES, 2002, p. 65).
Outside of school, specialists engage in a variety of art-related activities to a "great" or
"moderate extent". The most common are attending museums and galleries (73%) and
creating art (67%). A third engage in other forms of study, writing or critiquing art; and 28%
provide art leadership in their community or state. Relatively few exhibit their own art (26%).
Fourteen percent also teach art in venues other than school. These proportions suggest that
most elementary specialists participate in activities related to their primary interest in art; but
they do not, in large numbers, seek identities as exhibiting artists (NCES, 2002, pp. 85-86).
Recent Professional Development
In the 12-month period prior to 1999-2000, specialists reported they had many professional
development activities (PDAs), some art-specific and some general. For art-specific PDAs,
79% had programs on the topic of connecting or integrating art and other subjects, 72% on
knowledge of art (historical, critical, analytical), and 56% on creating art. About half of these
PDAs were over 8 hours long, and about four out of five teachers said the activities improved

7. their instruction to a "moderate" or "great extent." Rates of satisfaction were greatest for
PDAs on connecting art and other subjects (59%) and least for studio-based PDAs (41%).
Specialists were also engaged with many general PDAs. Participation rates in relation to
topics were: 81% for standards-based instruction, 70% for new methods of teaching, 69% for
student assessment, with 64% for teaching with technology. Specialists said those on
technology were most effective, and those on standards least effective (NCES, 2002, pp. 69-
72). About a thitd of these PDAs were over 8 hours long.
Specialists reported slightly greater rates of overall satisfaction with their general PDAs than
PDAs focused on art content (57% vs. 51%). The overall supply of PDAs in a single year
suggests that many specialists are engaged in extensive in-service, with about 35% of general
PDAs and 47% of art-specific PDAs relatively intensive (over 8 hours).
Assignments and Teaching Schedules
About half of specialists are assigned to teach in only one school, a third are assigned to teach
in two schools, and 16% ate assigned to three or more schools (NCES, 2002, pp. 74-75). A
typical specialist meets 555 students a week, 5 classes a day, and 22 classes in a week. Most
schools (77%) schedule art classes for a full year, with 58% offering instruction at least once
a week.
A typical class period is 43 minutes long. There is little variation in the length of classes
across all demographic categories (only 2 minutes). Average preparation time during a week
is 4.2 hours. If we assume an equal distribution of students across classes, a typical class has
25 students. A typical student who has once-a-week classes teceives about 26 hours of
instruction a year, assuming attendance is perfect and no class time is lost lor any reason
(NCES, 2002, p. 77). These conditions ate less than optimal for coherent guidance of
individual students.
Indicators of Job Satisfaction
Degrees of job satisfaction are mixed in relation to perceived support for art and securing
resources for teaching. About two-thirds of specialists "strongly agree" that "students are
motivated to do well in my classes." About half "strongly agree" that administrators support
their work. However, less than half (44%) think parents support their efforts and even fewer
(31%) say that classroom teachers support art as an important part of the curriculum (NCES,
2002, p. 79). Unlike principals, specialists see parents as more supportive of the art program
than classroom teachers. These perceptions may influence the degree to which specialists
actively seek collaborations with classroom teachers.
Few teachers have ideal environments for teaching. The problems cited by specialists are
visually presented in Figure 1 to indicate their relative salience. Inadequate technology is the
first in line (computers, scanners, video), and perhaps because 64% of specialists recently had
intensive PDAs with this focus (NCES, 2002, pp. 69-72). These PDAs may have set greater
expectations for resources than schools were able to provide.
For many, time for collaborative planning is a major problem, and not unexpected given the
organizational demands of teaching art and expectations for integrating art and other subjects.
Less salient, but still significant, are inadequate time for teaching; lack of equipment; lack of

8. resources such as prints, slides, and videos; and not having a dedicated art room. Fewer have
difficulty in securing art materials and small art tools such as scissors, brushes, and brayers
(NCES, 2002, p. 76). These responses, averaged over the seven questions, suggest that about
42% of specialists teach under conditions that are "minimally" or "not at all adequate."
Curriculum Emphases
Most specialists say their curriculum is aligned with national standards (87%) and based on a
local art curriculum guide (73%). Most also report that their curriculum emphasizes
integrating art and other subjects (77%), and making connections among the arts (69%).
More than a third (38%) say that administrators and classroom teachers strongly support this
kind of teaching. As will be evident in other reports, there is more lip service to connections
than practical emphasis on this dimension of art education (NCES, 2002, p. 80).
Specialists were asked to indicate whether, and in what degree, they emphasized the forms of
knowledge and skill in the national arts standards (Consortium of National Arts Education
Associations, 1994). The standards reported as "major emphasis" are shown in Figure 2 and
illustrate the relative priority of national standards as these serve as guides for reporting on
practice. Within this apparent hierarchy, it is worth noting that making connections with other
subjects is next to last. Similarly, "reflecting on and assessing one's own or others' work" may
be an ideal, but it is not the norm in practice, and for many reasons, including class time and
class loads.
Elsewhere I have noted that most of the national arts standards do emphasize performance in
the manner of an artist and other conventional content in art education (Chapman, 1998,
1999). Especially at the elementary level, the national standards emphasize breadth over
depth in study. The standards also reflect a formalist emphasis on the so-called elements and
principles of design. Both emphases, like the standards, reflect longstanding traditions in
teaching art (Efland, 1990).
Assessment of Learning
Formal assessment of learning is uncommon. Indeed, 13% of specialists do not attempt any
assessment and most rely on observation (71%) or relative success in art projects and
performing tasks (64%). Thirty percent evaluate portfolios of student work, but how this is
done, and how often, is not reported. With an average of 555 students, infrequent evaluation
is likely. Only a few specialists use more formal strategies, common in other subjects.
Among these are: constructing rubrics (14%), short written answers or essays (4%), and
selected-response assessments (3%), the latter meaning "choose the best answer to the
question."
It is worth noting that in the 12-month period before 1999-2000, 69% of specialists reported
that they had participated in PDAs centered on assessment of student performance. Further,
55% reported that these activities improved their teaching to a "moderate or great extent." It
seems unlikely that these PDAs were specifically keyed to art assessment. In any case, the
use of "standardized arts assessments," reported by 17% of principals, is not well supported
by the responses of specialists (NCES, 2002, pp. 70-73).
Collaborative Activity

9. Figure 3 illustrates that time for collaborative planning is scarce (NCES, 2002, pp. 77-78).
The absence of time for systematic collaboration severely limits specialists' direct knowledge
of the practices of art teachers in other schools and other arts teachers in their own schools.
These same conditions handicap specialists' ability to shape arts-based reforms, plan
interdisciplinary units, or integrate art and other subjects.
Interdisciplinary, Integrated Instruction
Although 77% of specialists report that their curriculum emphasizes integrating art and other
subjects, only 37% cite it as a "major emphasis" in their programs relative to other aims
(NCES, 2002, pp. 79, 83). This lower proportion is not far from specialists' reports that
administrators and colleagues support such instruction (38%), and specialists who report that
they consult with classroom teachets on integrating the arts "at least once a month" (33%).
These reports of relative emphasis are at odds with the high proportion of specialists who, in
the prior 12-month period reported having PDAs with a focus on connecting art to other
subjects (79%). The unanswered question is why the supply of this kind of PDA is far greater
than any apparent demand for it from principals (NCES, 2002, pp. 69, 71).
Overall, I judge that one out of thtee or four specialists is engaged in practices related to
"integration" or "connections" under conditions that allow for some measure of systematic
collaboration. Further, because "connections" are only one of six major arts standards, even
this degree of emphasis may be disproportionate relative to other standards. Consider, for
example, that among national standards in 12 subjects, only standards in the arts explicitly
call for connections/integrations (Chapman, 1999).
Classroom Teachers
In 1999-2000, 92% of the nation's 903,200 elementary classroom teachers (full-time, self-contained
classroom) reported that they taught art (NCES, 2002, pp. 64, 81). Of these, 10%
had completed an undergraduate or graduate major or minor in art (NCES, 2002, p. 68).
Although 56% report that they view and respond to art to a "moderate" or "great extent"
outside of school, only 13% of classroom teachers report that they create arr and less than
10% engage in other activities (teach art in other venues; study, critique, write about art;
provide arts leadership) that indicate out-of-school interests (NCES, 2002, p. 86). All of these
proportions suggest that about 10% of classroom teachets may have content qualifications
and interests approximating those of specialists.
Recent Professional Development
In the prior 12 months, almost all classroom teachers had participated in PDAs dealing with
standards-based instruction (90%), assessment of student petformance (87%), new methods
of teaching (86%), or technology-based instruction (84%). Overall, fewer classroom teachers
had participated in arts-specific PDAs than specialists. Twenty-seven percent of classroom
teachers had experienced programs to enhance their skills in creating art, and one-fourth had
activities to increase their knowledge of art-historical, cultural, and critical. Less than half
(46%) had PDAs that focused on connecting art to other subjects, fewer than arts specialists
by a margin of 33%.

10. Overall, arts-specific PDAs for classroom teachers were less adequate in quantity, length, and
effectiveness than for art specialists. About 13% to 14% found the PDAs on knowledge of art
and studio helpful to a "moderate" or "great" extent, increasing to 26% for the topic of
connecting art to other subjects (NCES, 2002, pp. 69, 71-72). We may also conclude that
classroom teachers are on the receiving end of many PDAs and that art-specific PDAs are
judged less helpful than those on more general topics.
Curriculum Substance and Emphasis
Figure 4 illustrates the extent to which art instruction offered by classroom teachers is
congruent with standards, curriculum-based, and informed by the use of content resources.
All of these proportions are remarkable, given that 90% of these teachers reported having
standards-based PDAs in the last 12 months. Quite clearly, these PDAs did not give much
attention to art standards, if any (NCES, 2002, pp. 71-72).
Almost all classroom teachers (88%) report that they integrate art with other subjects. Both
the quality and art-centered character of "integrated" instruction is seriously cast in doubt by
a series of reports on what classroom teachers say they emphasize to a "great extent." Only
28% say that they emphasize theme-based units including the arts. Only 27% of classroom
teachers say they emphasize the visual arts, 15% music, 8% drama/ theater, 3% dance. Few
(3%) rely on texts or other prepared curriculum resources for informational support to a
"great extent" (NCES, 2002, pp. 80-81). In sum, very few classroom teachers engage students
with artspecific content of the kind emphasized in the national arts standards.
Collaborative Role in Teaching Art
The very limited knowledge of classroom teachers in art is recognized by the veiy presence
of art specialists in elementary schools, not only to provide direct instruction to children, but
also to offer remedial help to classroom teachers. In theory, this ameliorative role is most
effective when specialists serve as collaborators with classroom teachers on a regular basis,
not just a few times a year. Similarly, if a school has specialists in several of the arts,
opportunities for these specialists to engage in joint planning improves the likelihood that
connections among the arts are made, and that classroom teachers receive coherent help.
These principles are not widely reflected in practice, and for many reasons. First, a typical
specialist has more time for planning in school (4.2 hours) than a typical classroom teacher
(3.4 hours). second, more than two-thirds of classroom teachers (68%) have at least once-a-month
meetings with other classroom teachers. This pattern pre-empts some time that might
be devoted to joint planning with specialists. Third, 27% of classroom teachers engage in
Individual Educational Planning for special education students "at least once a month,"
compared with 9% of art teachers (NCES, 2002, pp. 77-78). These differences do not take
into account the great pressure on classroom teachers to produce test scores that meet NCLB
expectations.
Finally, although 87% of classroom teachers report recent PDAs on assessing student
performance, 44% do not engage in any form of assessment of art learning. Assessment
strategies used by classroom teachers to "a great extent" include observation (27%),
performance on a project or task (19%), portfolios (12%), rubrics (6%), short written answer
or essay (6%), and select-a-response (1%) (NCES, 2002, p. 84).

11. If it is true that classroom teachers are well-poised to illuminate connections between the arts
and other subjects, there can be no doubt that most classroom teachers lack the knowledge,
skill, and compensatory support necessary to ensure that art learning is sound in content,
standards-based, and systematically assessed. More data bearing on policy and practice are
available, but one final round of insights comes from public opinion polls and concerns about
the effects of NCLB on arts education.
Part III: Public Opinion and Emerging Trends Related to NCLB
As we look for data to understand public opinion about arts education, several patterns can be
identified. First, it is well known that support for arts education is greatest among persons
who have a college degree and above average income (DiMaggio & Pettit, 1999). That same
profile extends to endorsements of specific national standards in art as "necessary" or
"probably necessary" for high school graduation (Marzano & Gaddy, 1999, April 21).
Second, opinions about government support for the arts and arts education in schools are
closely coupled, but only at the extremes of "strong support" or "strong opposition." In other
words there are strong supporters and strong opponents. Strong supporters number about one
in forty. Strong opponents number about one in five (DiMaggio & Pettit, 1999). These
proportions are not good news for arts education because opinions firmly held are difficult to
change.
Third, although most Americans voice support for arts education in schools, their opinions
are often weakly held, ill informed, and sometimes contradictory. For example, if you ask
only about arts education in schools, endorsements are relatively high. If you ask for a
ranking of the importance of various school subjects, the arts are at or near the bottom of the
list, along with foreign language (Marzano & Gaddy, 1999). In 1997, prior to NCLB, 47% of
citizens endorsed the arts as "essential" or "very important" as subjects for study, but only in
secondary schools (NCES, 1997).3 In the same year, only 5% to 8% counted visual art
education a "basic" subject in schools (Rose, Gallup & Elam, 1997).
Fourth, a recent survey by Rose & Gallup (2003a) suggests that about two-thirds of parents
are satisfied with the schools their children attend. However, there is considerable support for
some of the NCLB initiatives among adults, especially for competency tests for teachers, and
testing in grades 3 to 8 with an emphasis on reading and mathematics, and even if that means
a reduced emphasis on other subjects. These attitudes suggest that the back-to-basics
movement charted in NCLB has relatively strong support.
Under NCLB, the pressure on schools to produce high scores on tests is great. It is not
uncommon for 3 weeks to be devoted exclusively to testprep activities. Statewide tests may
pre-empt another full week because the time may be distributed over several days. Some tests
take 17 hours to complete (Meek, 2003). In North Carolina, 80% of elementary teachers
report they spend 6 to 7 weeks preparing for end-of-year tests (Abrams & Madaus, 2003).
The proliferation of mandated tests in the next several years can only mean that time for art
instruction is reduced. In elementary schools, testprep and test taking may well exceed the 26
hours typically devoted to once-a-week visual arts instruction in a year. Although statewide
arts assessments are under development for the elementary grades in four states, nothing in
the data I have reported provides a warrant for trusting the results as measures of in-school
learning (AEP, 2003; Hatfield & Peeno, 2002).

12. Concluding Observations
Between 1997 and 2004, most elementary schools offered some form of art education, but the
data I have gathered-in the period just before and just after NCLB-show that many
elementary art specialists work in an environment marked by token support for studies in art.
In spite of lip service to the arts as a core subject in NCLB, art education in public elementary
schools is not routinely treated as a core subject.
The status of art education in any given school does hinge on the financial resources of the
state and community in which it is located. No less important are policies that ensure art is on
the agenda for schools, and in ways that focus clearly on learning in art. At least some deeply
embedded inequities may be the result of low expectations for learning in the arts. These low
expectations provide the conditions for a self-fulfilling prophecy in which opportunities for
learning are reduced, or concentrated in a few schools under the banner of arts-based reforms
and/or arts magnet schools.
In many schools, and in NCLB, initiatives for improvement call for integrating the arts into
the academic curriculum. Ironically, this stance acknowledges that studies of the arts have
been so neglected that they must now be integrated back into the curriculum. At the same
time, the expertise of specialists is largely untapped in the quest for this kind of school
improvement. This problem is acute in elementary schools, where administrative policies
prevent specialists from co-planning with classroom teachers and other art specialists. Apart
from this deficit, the majority of classroom teachers are not prepared to offer standards-based
instruction and not receiving professional development activities that inform them (even
minimally) of expectations for learning in art.
High proportions of specialists are experienced, look forward to more years of teaching, have
master's degrees, and are reasonably satisfied with their conditions of work. Most try for
standards-based teaching, even in the absence of adequate resources and guaranteed support
from within their schools. Working in isolation, specialists may concentrate on preserving the
time and resources allocated to them rather than working for better policies.
It is remarkable, for example, that the voice of specialists on key matters such as the art
curriculum and use of art funds is not routinely granted by principals, and diminished even
more in low SES schools where artsbased reforms are more common. Although many NCLB
funds flow to programs in low SES schools, the priority for schools is improving AYP in
reading, mathematics, and science.
I have no crystal ball, but under NCLB, art programs are especially vulnerable to cuts in the
many states (about 43) already in financial trouble, and in public schools where 35% or more
of students are "at risk" for academic failure. Further, in the decade ahead, all public schools
(irrespective of SES and other factors) face the challenge of meeting AYP and other
requirements of TVo Child Left Behind.
Given the extraordinary pressure to improve test scores in three subjects, it seems likely that
several patterns of practice will emerge. The first may be calls for even more integration of
the arts into the so-called regular curriculum. But if this direction is to have substantive
integrity, cooperative planning time is required. As Figure 3 shows, that condition is
extremely rare and it is unlikely to improve if schools accelerate test preparation activities
(Meek, 2003).

13. Some amplification of the "art as recess" syndrome is likely, where the studio focus of most
programs is viewed as stress reducing, hands on (minds off) relief from more important
studies. For example, in my hometown, some teachers are required to plan their calendars so
everyone knows when to teach parts of the curriculum and assess progress. Students who
master the material on time earn "enrichment" classes while the others engage in remedial
work (Harden, 2003). In this case, art functions as a bribe or reward.
A fourth prospect is that art programs will be entirely extracurricular or cut altogether. In
early 2004, a Council on Basic Education survey indicated that 25% of principals had cut arts
education and 33% anticipated future reductions. In high-minority schools, 36% reported
decreases and 42% anticipated them in the near future. Only 10% reported increases or
anticipated these. In states with high-stakes tests before the full force of NCLB, 43% of
teachers reported they had "decreased a great deal" the time spent teaching fine arts, with the
greatest impact in elementary schools, then middle schools (Pedulla, 2003; NAEA, 2003c).
Arts education is likely to survive in this academic regime, but in the high-stakes climate of
"test-em-til-they-drop" extraordinary leadership will be necessary. Traditions of teaching and
learning in the arts (visual, music, dance, drama) are contrary to the prevailing ethos of
national policy, and at many levels (Chapman, 2002; Efland, 1990; Eisner, 2003; Greene,
1988; Stankiewicz, 2001; Tillim, 1999). Nothing in NCLB supports teaching from critically
informed, progressive, or constructivist perspectives.
With or without NCLB, the students who are most likely to have sustained and coherent
instruction, of assured quality, are also likely to be advantaged in a thousand ways-oriented to
succeed in school, able to do that, and with economic and symbolic support for studies in the
arts as a hallmark of becoming well-educated. In the main, these are already the students who
benefit from arts education in schools (e.g., Burton, 2001). At the same time, support for arts
education among persons who are very well educated and affluent should not be taken for
granted. The proportion of "strong supporters" among this advantaged group is moderate at
best.
At this juncture, I hope most for a major backlash against the draconian requirements of
NCLB, and there are signs of this beyond references to the "lost" or "atrophied" curriculum.
For example, a recent survey indicates that 82% of parents of public school students and 80%
of the general public are concerned that an intense focus on tests in English and mathematics
"will mean less emphasis on art, music, history and other subjects" (Rose and Gallup, 2003b,
p. 46). In early 2004, 21 states had passed or were considering legislation to refuse all NCLB
funds or those for particular programs (Manzo, 2004).
In the decade ahead, the nation's public schools will be transformed, but whether the effects
are positive as legislators hope it will be remains to be seen. NCLB is the most extensive, and
the most expensive experiment in reform in United States history, and it is proceeding in the
absence of "rigorous" scientific evidence in support of it (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Darling-
Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Lauder & Hughes, 1999).
I urge others in our professional group to find, develop, and publish other data on patterns in
policy and practice at the national, state, and local levels. We need to closely monitor, report
on, and resist policies and practices that tacitly or overtly demean the arts and studies of
them. In my judgment, that is precisely what NCLB does, authorizes, and promotes as if that

14. position were enlightened policy. It is not, but silence from within the profession becomes an
unspoken assent to it.
Footnote
1 In NCES surveys, four categories position schools in relation to minority enrollment: 5% or
less, 6% to 20%, 21% to 50%, more than 50%. The proportion of students in a school who
are eligible for free and reduced prices lunches serves as a proxy for the socioeconomic status
(SES) of a school's population, with four levels in the proportions of eligible students: less
than 35%, 35% to 49%, 50% to 75%, and 74% or more.
2 Tabular summaries of the data I report upon are too extensive for inclusion in this article.
Numerical tables, some with extensive demographic breakouts, can be found in the surveys
as cited, especially NCES reports. I include four bar charts from 44 I prepared as an aid in
visually summarizing tabular data and distilling key points for this article. Printed copies of
the 44 charts are available from the author, with lull annotations of sources and the basis for
any adjusted proportions.
3 Opinions about secondary art instruction were based on a survey sponsored by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The countries involved were
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The international average of
endorsement of the arts as "very important" or "essential" was 38%. The highest ratings were
from Switzerland (58%) and Portugal (54%). see National Center for Education Statistics
(1997).
References
References
Abrams, I. M., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). The lessons of high stakes testing. Educational
Leadership, 67(32), 31-35.
Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The effects of high stakes testing on student
motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 32-38.
Arts Education Partnership. (2003). State assessment measures in the arts, 2002-2003. In
State arts education policy database. Retrieved June 27, 2003 from http://www.aep-arts.org/
policysearch/searchengine/searchResults.cfm.
Brewer, T. (2003). The "grand paradox" in teacher preparation and certification. Arts
Education Policy Review, 104(6), 3-10.
Burton, D. (2001). Quartile analysis of selected variables from the NAEP visual arts data. In
R. M. Diket, F. R. Sabol, & D. Burton, Implications of the NAEP Visual Arts Data for
Policies Concerning Artistic Development in America's Schools and Communities, CFDA
84.902 B. pp. 50-93. Hattiesburg, MS: William Carey College.
Chapman, L. H. (1998, April). Representing the world of art: How standards may influence
types of lessons. Paper presented at the National Art Education Conference, Chicago, IL.

15. Chapman, L. H. (1999, March). Some hidden meanings in all those year 2000 standards.
Paper presented at the National Art Education Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Chapman, I,. H. (2002, March). Should art be advocated as an academic subject? Invited
paper presented at the National Art Education Conference for the Content and Purposes
Series, Miami, FL
Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National standards for arts
education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2002). Key state policies on PK-12 education: 2002.
Washington, DC: Author.
Council on Basic Education. (2004). Academic atrophy: The condition of the liberal arts in
America's public schools. Retrieved March 17, 2004 from http://www.c-b-e-.org.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining "highly qualified teachers": What
does "scientifically-based research" actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 3/(9), 13-25
DiMaggio, P., & Pettit, B. (1999). Surveys of public attitudes toward the arts: What surveys
tell us about the arts' political trials-and how they might tell us more. Arts Education Policy
Review, 100(4), 32-37.
Efland, A. (1990). A history of art education: Intellectual and social currents in teaching the
visual arts. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eisner, E. W. (2003). Some questionable assumptions about our schools. Phi Delta Kappan,
84(9), 648-656.
Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Harden, C. (2003, September 20). Education official to visit College Hill: District plans to
show off program. The Cincinnati Post, 11A.
Hatfield, T. A., & Peeno, I,. N. (2002). Status of the states arts education policies. Reston,
VA: National Art Education Association.
Lauder, H., & Hughes, D. (1999). Trading in futures: Why markets m education won't work.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Manzo, K. K. (2004, March 3). Federal law is questioned by governors. Education Week, 1,
17.
Marzano, R. J., & Gaddy, B. B. (1999, April 21). Deciding on essential knowledge.
Education Week, 68, 49
Meek, C. (2003). Classroom crisis: It's about time. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(8), 592-595.

16. National Art Education Association. (2003a, June). NAEA "at the table" with state boards on
arts education policy. (E-mail received from Thomas Hatfield, Executive Director, National
Art Education Association, June 27, 2003 from http://www.naea.org.
National Art Education Association. (2003b, October 18). NAEA advocacy update. The lost
curriculum and foreign language in a standards-based system. E-mail received October 19,
2003 from http://www.thatfield@naea-reston.org with a link to http://www.
nasbe.org/Research_Projects/Lost_Curriculum.html
National Art Education Association. (2003c, October). New York Times reports on arts
education cutbacks in New York City schools. NAEA News, 1.
National Center for Education Statistics (1997). Public attitudes toward secondary education:
The United States in an international context (NCES 97-595). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Arts education in public elementary and
secondary schools, 1999-2000 (NCES-131- 2002). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110 (HR1). www.ed.gov/nclb
Pedulla, J. J. (2003). State mandated testing: What do teachers think? Educational
Leadership, 61(3), 42-46.
Popham, W. J. (2003). The seductive allure of data. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 48-51.
Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice.
Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
Rose, L. C, & Gallup, A. M. (2003a). Pulse of the public: Age and attitudes. Phi Delta
Kappan, 84(8), 633-634.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2003b). The 35th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of public
attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 41-56.
Rose, E. C., Gallup, A. M., & Elam, S. M. (1997). The 29th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup
poll of public attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 52.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (200 ) ). Roots of an education practice. Worcester, MA: Davis
Publications.
Tillim, S. (1999). The academy, postmodernism and the education of the artist. Art in
America, 57(4), 61-6.
AuthorAffiliation
Laura H. Chapman
Independent Scholar, Cincinnati, OH

17. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the author at 343 Probasco
Street, Cincinnati, OH 452202815. E-mail: chapmanLH@aol.com
This article is based on a paper prepared for the National Art Education Association
Conference in Denver, 2004. It owes much to the work of Thomas A. Hatfield and Larry N.
Peeno who have assiduously issued "Policy Watch" mernos on behalf of the National Art
Education Association in a timely manner and with key sources of data. My interpretations of
data, including references to the No Child Left Behind Act, should not be attributed to any
official position taken by NAEA.
Copyright National Art Education Association Winter 2005
Indexing (details)
Cite
Subject
Elementary education;
Art education;
Education policy;
Teaching methods
Title
Status of Elementary Art Education: 1997-2004
Author
Chapman, Laura H
Publication title
Studies in Art Education
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
118-137
Number of pages
20
Publication year

18. 2005
Publication date
Winter 2005
Year
2005
Publisher
National Art Education Association
Place of publication
Reston
Country of publication
United States
Publication subject
Art, Handicapped--Hearing Impaired
ISSN
00393541
Source type
Scholarly Journals
Language of publication
English
Document type
Feature
Document feature
Graphs;References
ProQuest document ID
199770950
Document URL
http://search.proquest.com.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my/docview/199770950?accountid=42518

19. Copyright
Copyright National Art Education Association Winter 2005
Last updated
2014-07-26
Database
Arts & Humanities Full Text