Download to read offline
Uploaded byAmericans4Arts
State Policy Pilot Program - Gap Analysis
The Americans for the Arts' State Policy Pilot Program (SP3) conducted a gap analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of arts education policies across the U.S., including interviews with 50 states and D.C. The research highlights discrepancies between established policies and actual practices in arts education, identifying barriers like inequitable access, lack of funding, and insufficient policy specificity. The analysis calls for improved accountability and advocacy to strengthen arts education and suggests successful models and collaborations as paths forward.
More Related Content
Similar to State Policy Pilot Program - Gap Analysis
State Policy Pilot Program - Gap Analysis
- 1. Americans for theArts’ State Policy Pilot Program
- 2. SP3 Gap Analysis ComparingPolicies to Practice Gap Analysis Goals: To determine how effective policies are; which polices are being implemented; and what constitutes good policy language. To raise awareness about the importance of policy in ensuring access to arts education. Gap Analysis Research Interviews with 50 States and D.C. ArtScan Database
- 3. Gap Analysis Synthesizing CurrentResearch Synthesizing current research reveals: Many examples of proven benefits of arts exposure Some policies require arts instruction or define the arts as a core curriculum Statewide surveys indicate a discrepancy in policy versus practice
- 5. SP3 Gap Analysis Interviews InterviewQuestions Questions included the following themes: ArtScan review and recommendations Policy effectiveness and evaluation Critical policy language Additional policies needed Successes or barriers to success Arts Education Allies Model Schools, Districts, and Arts Organizations Other factors
- 6. 56 32 29 25 19 15 11 8 8 8 Accountability Inequitable Access Lacking ComplianceMechanism Policy Affected by Local Control Lack of funding Disciplines Enequally Represented Unspecific Policy Arts Education Coalition Lacking Data to Support Policy Lacking Department of Education Representative Policy Effectiveness
- 7. 40 38 26 14 10 10 6 6 6 Arts Instruction Fundamental(e.g. Core) Learning Standards/Curriculum High School Graduation Requirement Mandatory language (should vs. must) Instruction in four/five disciplines Teacher Training/Certification Language Should Be More Clear Assessment/Evaluation Competing requirements (eg. CTE, and/or) Critical Policy Language
- 8. 46 33 24 21 17 17 15 13 13 11 Accountability System Arts EdCollege Admission Requirement High School Requirement (Strengthen, etc) Assessment/Evaluation Adequate and Equitable Resources Arts Education Training Requirement/Competency for all teachers Arts Integration Arts as Required, Not Optional Statewide Reporting/Data System Adequate/Qualified Staffing Additional Policies Needed
- 9. 98 73 48 47 41 17 17 15 15 Curriculum/Instruction Lack of Resources Governmental/PolitcalFactors Administrative Lack of funding Serving varying needs (Rural, Urban, Suburban) Narrowing of Curriculum/Competing Priorities Inequality of Allocated Funding Standardized testing Barriers to Success
- 10. 60 50 47 18 16 16 15 11 10 8 Administrative Instruction Engaging Stakeholders rts Organizations/InstitutionsFacilitate Learning Funding Professional Development Arts integration Standards Development Leadership Values the Arts Sharing successes Policy Implementation Successes
- 11. 44 25 22 19 16 16 15 11 9 8 Showcase Successes Professional Development Collaborationwith Arts and Cultural Organizations Arts Integration Leverage Financial Support Provide Advocacy Opportunities Success attracts attention of policymakers Best Practices/Practical Models Provide Data Magnet Schools Model Schools, Districts, or Arts Organizations
- 12. 41 37 33 23 23 22 17 16 15 14 Elected/Appointed Officials Hinder StatewideArts Advocacy or Education Agency Helps Coalition/Task Force Helps Elected/Appointed Officials Help How? Engage Stakeholders DOE Leadership Helps Arts Councils/Grant Programs Help How? Provide Resources Hindrance: Individual Interests/Discipline-Specific Advocacy Communication/Collabortion Helps How Advocacy Allies or Key Leaders Help (or Hinder)
- 13. SP3 Gap Analysis Takeaways Accountability Policy Leadership Advocacy
- 14. SP3 Gap Analysis Takeaways CALL TO ACTION! Arts Education Navigatorwww.americansforthearts.org/arts- education-navigator/your-state For more information about AFTA’s State Policy Pilot Program: www.americansforthearts.org/sp3
- 15. Resources Arts at theCore: Every School, Every Student (Chicago, IL: Illinois Creates, 2005) Accessed June 2, 2015, http://www.aep-arts.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/05/IL-2005.pdf Arts Education in Michigan: Fostering Creativity and Innovation (Royal Oak, MI: Michigan Youth Arts, 2012) Accessed May 3, 2015, http://programs.ccsso.org/link/aep/MI2011.pdf Arts Education Makes a Difference in Missouri Schools (St. Louis, MO: Missouri Alliance for Education, 2008) Accessed June 11, 2015, http://www.aep-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/MO- 2008.pdf Bell, Allen. Arts Education in the South Phase I: Public School Data and Principals’ Perspectives (Atlanta, GA: A South Arts Research Publication, 2014) Accessed May 5, 2015, http://programs.ccsso.org/link/aep/SouthArtsReport2014ALFLGAKYLAMSNCSCTN.pdf Cirillo, Patricia J., DeMuro, Aimee, Young, Amber. Colorado Visual and Performing Arts Education Survey Statistical Report. (Shaker Heights, OH: Cypress Research Group, 2008) Accessed on May15, 2015, http://programs.ccsso.org/link/aep/CO2008.pdf Collins, Sarah Katherine. Access to the Arts in Oregon Schools. (Salem, OR: Oregon Arts Commission, 2011) Accessed June 1, 2015. http://www.aep-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/OR-2011.pdf Engaging Students, Supporting Schools, Accessing Art Education: Highlights from the Arizona Arts Education Census Project. (Arizona Arts Education Research Institute) Accessed May 5, 2015, http://www.aep-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/AZ-2010.pdf For Our Children: A Report on the Status of Arts Education in Idaho (Idaho Commission on the Arts and Idaho State Department of Education, 2010) Accessed May 13, 2015, http://www.aep-arts.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/05/ID-2009.pdf For Our Children: A Report on the Status of Arts Education in Montana (East Centerville, UT: Montana Arts Council and Bothell Assessment and Research, 2010) Accessed June 11, 2015, http://www.aep- arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/MT-2009.pdf Guha, R., Woodworth, K.R., Kim, D., Malin, H., & Park, J. (2008). An unfinished canvas. Teacher preparation, instructional delivery, and professional development in the arts. (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International) Accessed May 10, 2015, http://www.aep-arts.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/05/CA- 2008.pdf K-12 Arts Education: Every Student, Every School, Every Year (Olympia, WA: Washington State Arts Commission, 2009) Accessed June 11, 2015, http://programs.ccsso.org/link/aep/WA2009.pdf Kaufman, Julia et al., Arts Education Collaborative Baseline Survey on the State of Arts Education in Southwestern Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Center for Learning in Out of School Environments, 2005) Accessed June 1, 2015. http://www.aep-arts.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/05/PA-2005.pdf Keeping the Promise, Arts Education for Every Child: The Distance Travelled – The Journey Remaining (New Jersey Arts Education Partnership, Quadrant Arts Education Research, 2012) Accessed May 5, 2015, http://www.aep-arts.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/05/AZ-2010.pdf Kirkpatrick Foundation/Quadrant Arts Education Research, 2009, Music Education in Oklahoma Schools: A Preliminary Review. Accessed May 10, 2015, www.artsedresearch.org/oklahoma.html Literacy in the Arts: A Framework for Action (Providence, RI: Rhode Island State Council on the Arts and Rhode Island Department of Education, 2001) Accessed June 1, 2015 http://www.aep- arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/RI-2001.pdf Morrison, Robert B. and Patricia J. Cirillo. (2012). Building a Legacy: Arts Education for All Minnesota Students. (Golden Valley, MN: Perpich) Accessed May 10, 2015. http://www.aep-arts.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/05/MN-2012.pdf Measuring Up: New Hampshire Arts Education Data Project Report (New Hampshire Department of Education, 2011) Accessed June 7, 2015, http://programs.ccsso.org/link/aep/NH2009.pdf New Mexico Fine Arts Education Act: Program Plan and Evaluation--Year 10 (New Mexico Public Education Department, New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, and New Mexico Arts, 2013), Accessed June 1, 2015, http://ped.state.nm.us/Humanities/Arts/2013/Fine%20Arts%20Education%20Act.Final%20wlette r.pdf On Thin Ice: Arts Education in Alaska Schools (Alaska State Council on the Arts, in partnership with Alaska Arts Education Consortium, a member of the Kennedy Center Alliance for Arts Education Network, 2009.) Accessed May 20, 2015, http://www.aep-arts.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/AK-2009.pdf The Status of Arts Education in Ohio’s Public Schools (Ohio Alliance for Arts Education, Ohio Arts Council, and Ohio Department of Education, 2013) Accessed June 11, 2015, http://programs.ccsso.org/link/aep/OH2013.pdf
Editor's Notes
- #2 For the past 13 months, I have had the pleasure of serving as a fellow for Americans for the Arts through the State Policy Pilot Program or SP3 through the Gap Analysis under the direction of Arts Education Policy Manager Kristen Engebretsen. You have more information about the Gap Analysis and SP3 as a whole, which included three strategies: 1 – State-based Data Collection 2 – Working with States 3 – Networking and Knowledge Sharing The gap analysis falls squarely in strategy 1.
- #3 Gap Analysis Goals: To determine Policy effectiveness; which polices are being implemented; and what constitutes good policy language. To raise awareness about the importance of policy in ensuring access to arts education. Gap Analysis Research Interviews with 50 States and D.C. ArtScan Database
- #4 Synthesizing current research reveals: Many examples of proven benefits of arts exposure Some policies require arts instruction or define the arts as a core curriculum Statewide surveys indicate a discrepancy in policy versus practice
- #5 The ArtScan database and specifically the State of the States 2016 summary served as a resource throughout the study. This summary highlights 13 Key Policy Indicators from whether the arts are designated as a core subject to instructional requirements to whether the state has an arts education grant program.
- #6 Interview Questions Questions included the following themes: ArtScan review and recommendations Policy effectiveness and evaluation Critical policy language Additional policies needed Successes or barriers to success Arts Education Allies Model Schools, Districts, and Arts Organizations Other factors
- #7 For each of the interview questions, we have a slide relating to the accompanying data and a quote. In terms of policy effectiveness, accountability-related responses were the most prevalent. “Well, we have accountability standards, right?...it’s up to the district, if an art specialist is going to be in a school, the district can choose an art form. If not, the classroom teacher is supposed to. And we certainly come in, in that realm of saying, the arts for every child, access and equity are important, across the board. And in our work, we have seen too many schools where there’s lip service but no reality.”
- #8 Arts Instruction as Fundamental and Learning Standards or Curriculum were top responses, but in terms of critical policy language, this quote relates to mandatory language with 14 responses. “Well, there are two 4-letter words that people don't like to say, but are extraordinarily powerful in administrative code and they are “must” and “shall.”
- #9 Additional policies recommended primarily related to accountability, whether through surveys, reports, assessment or evaluation. Additionally, some states reflected on current policies: “[My state] has all but three policy areas checked off and I’m not sure that checking off the other three areas would have measureable impact. I do think that strengthening, clarifying and monitoring existing policies would have an impact.”
- #10 Lack of Resources came in a close second, but factors relating to Curriculum and Instruction were listed as the top barriers to success. “…arts assessment is not an A,B or C, answer. It’s a little bit more complicated, it takes a little bit more time, it takes a little bit more resources but that is actually incredibly valuable and ultimately pays for itself when the time is devoted to that piece. So what I would be looking for is maybe a more comprehensive assessment plan for arts education… and that would have to be acknowledged from the policy makers.”
- #11 In terms of successes in policy implementation, interviewees reported administrative and instruction successes, along with engaging stakeholders at #3. “One interesting thing happened to me one of those days that I was at the state house, I had talked about how bringing the arts into a school was a way to engage parents who were previously perhaps not engaged or engaged negatively in school culture, and one of the legislators came up to me and said we have been trying to find ways to legislate parent involvement, I’m interested in it.”
- #12 Interviewees overwhelmingly reported that model schools, districts or arts organizations impacted arts education policy by showcasing successes. “I think what's really key is when those model schools or programs do have data collected, that shows the impact on students, because when any stakeholders from mom all the way up to the governor can see that we impacted a student’s life through the arts, or a school or a district, then that really helps move the other districts or schools that are implementing the program to that same level.”
- #13 One interesting finding included that elected officials were noted to hinder as advocacy allies or key leaders and also help at 41 and 23 responses, respectively. “Last spring we did a push for Content Specialist at the National Core Arts Center…we had people all around the state writing for legislators and secretary of education and agency of education really demanding this that we recognize the arts as core, and it was really effective because it made the Agency of Education and the Secretary of Education reaffirm their support of the arts.” AND “It really has to reach into the community, then you know you’re getting traction. So I think our role as advocates is just to keep cultivating relationships of the people who get it. And just empower them.”
- #14 Factors for influencing implementing policy include: accountability, policy, leadership, and advocacy. Accountability Policy can be influenced by accountability factors, including: Reporting, data collection, surveys Department of Education visits Arts included in school/district planning Graduation requirements Policy Nugget #1: An opportunity: since interviewees often revealed a lack of policy knowledge or understanding, arts education stakeholders could benefit from better understanding of arts education policy. Leadership Nugget #2: Leaders who value the arts make a difference in arts education. Professional development in the arts for principals can be a means to engage leadership, as well as Including the arts in school and district planning. Advocacy Nugget #3: Working together with all stakeholders yields greater success Mobilizing non-traditional advocates such as parents, students, teachers can be effective.
- #15 CALL TO ACTION Arts education in the United States varies according to varying policies, procedures and funding. To better understand the policies in your state, you can use the Arts Education Navigator for more information on who to contact for updates on state arts education policy.