Comprehensive Arts Education


Comprehensive Arts Education

Contact: Not an existing organization , AL Phone:		Fax: Email: Web Address: Visit web site
Approach: Next generation of Discipline-Based Arts Education. Includes aesthetics, history, criticism, with creation, production. Partners: (Former) Getty Education Institute for the Arts, Los Angeles, CA (Former) Regional organizations (see below) Schools across many states, including California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas Description: In 1988, a coalition of six regional institutes who had received the J. Paul Getty Trust Regional Institute Grant (RIG) banded together to advance a comprehensive approach to arts education known as Discipline-Based Arts Education (DBAE) . Emerging as the National Arts Education Consortium (NAEC) in 1990’s, the coalition of organizations systematically investigated how to help teachers and students broaden their arts education knowledge and skills. In the late 1990’s, the Transforming Education through the Arts Challenge (TETAC) initiative energized the consortium and 35 partner schools with 1,600 teachers across eight states with an influx of resources for arts-infused education reform. The valuable evaluation of those efforts led the TETAC network towards a more flexible approach with what is now called comprehensive arts education (CAE). Transforming Education Through the Arts Challenge Report See also Discipline-Based Arts Education. As a framework, CAE includes and integrates: knowing theories of art (aesthetics), responding to art (art criticism), knowing contexts of art (art history), and creating art (art production/performance) (Killeen) Purpose: To reform education so a more comprehensive arts education is taught to all students: one that includes the creation and production of art, but also history, criticism, and aesthetics. The vision is for teachers and students to place art and what they learn about it in a context relevant to the world of art. Structures: National Arts Education Consortium (NAEC) serves as a national hub for the network. This locus allowed for greater coordination of TETAC and provides the opportunity to share research findings across communities and states. Generally, each regional organization provides at least one intensive summer institute for educators and engages in partnerships with education organizations. With CAE at the core, the interpretation and focus of each member varies, responsive in part to the local needs and interests of the community. Over the course of TETAC, regional organizations provided most of the professional development services. Beyond the summer seminars, new offerings began to emerge, including leadership weekends, for-credit graduate courses, and workshops. TETAC Governance: During the TETAC initiative, the NAEC’s National Steering Committee, comprised of directors from the regional members, made decisions for the multi-state project. Initially, its three task forces, professional development, curriculum, and evaluation, developed plans of action, with work plans and budgets. An external evaluation team replaced the evaluation task force when brought in. Midway through project, the consortium hired a national project manager and developed national headquarters to provide some staffing, and lessen the burden on each of the regional directors. This national staff provided administrative support and guidance. Concurrently, other TETAC stakeholders stepped into the leadership roles of the task forces. These changes helped balance the collaboration. TETAC in the field: Across the schools, 35 mentors provided direct professional development and technical assistance. Each regional selected its own mentors. Educationally, most had masters degrees, over a third had doctorates- the majority in the arts or fine arts. Mentors also served on task forces, providing valuable input particularly in capacity-building and curriculum. In 1997, 36 schools were selected from 101 across the nation. The group crossed geographic, economic, and racial lines, creating a diverse laboratory for this intensive professional development work. Each regional worked with up to six schools. Schools were expected to: strengthen and deepen their commitment to implementing CAE; use relevant school-reform strategies; develop vision statements and plans with assessments for implementation; participate in regional and other professional development; match the financial support (Killeen). Recent Professional Development Efforts by Former Regional Organizations Include: The California Consultancy for Arts Education For over eight years, CCAE has offered standards-based professional development programs and services in K-12 education. A weeklong annual Summer Art Institute at the Crocker Art Museum provides both hands-on art experiences and resources, strategies and support to take the learning into the classroom. Teachers look at, talk about, and make art. Their Curriculum Development Workshop helps teachers develop and use standards-based visual arts units. Services focus on school-based or grade-level teams, allowing collaborative planning. Two resources help teachers follow-up their intensive experiences. Their loaning library, the CCAE Art Resource Center offers, one the region’s largest collections of published curriculum and art resource material. Telephone consultations help teachers make connections after they leave. In addition, CCAE publishes a print portfolio resource of large high quality art reprints linked to lesson plans and biannual journal. In 2005, they started expanding their services in collaboration with California State University, Sacramento’s Teacher Education Department thanks to a National Endowment for the Arts grant. They participate in the California Alliance for Arts Education network. The Florida Institute for Art Education (FIAE) Mission: to serve as a Research and Development Institute leading educational communities through an interdisciplinary, multicultural approach to teaching and learning. FIAE develops and refines an arts and performance-based model of professional and curriculum development. Professional development is linked to state and school needs. Curriculum development and implementation continues to be refined through evaluation and assessment. FIAE's efforts have involved 30% of all school districts in Florida. The Florida Institute offers a variety of one- and two-week summer institutes co-sponsored by local school districts. Institutes work with teams of administrators, art teachers, classroom teachers, subject area teachers, exceptional student educators, media specialists, parents, museum educators and community representatives. Comprehensive Holistic Assessment Task (CHAT) is a series of standards-based models they have developed for Assessing Student Performance in Art. Based around thematic interdisciplinary, multicultural units with embedded performance assessments, the assessments have been field tested and revised and are now in use. An array of museum partnerships across the state provide educators instructional resource packets developed in collaboration with teachers. Partnership with the TETAC schools is ongoing. A school-to-work partnership with three high schools links arts to business and the professions. Through professional development and real-world student experiences, the partnership gives economic relevance to the arts in their lives. The North Texas Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts (NTIEVA) A research and staff development organization dedicated to discipline-based art education and comprehensive arts education, NTIEVA offers educators opportunities to learn both the theory and implementation of DBAE. Efforts focus on school district teams including art specialists, art supervisors, classroom teachers, principals, school leaders, and museum educators. A recent collaboration supports graduate fellowships http://www.art.unt.edu/ntieva/ See also: Prairie Visions: The Nebraska Consortium for Arts Education The Southeast Center for Education in the Arts Resources: TETAC: (over four years in late 1990’s) $4.3 million Annenberg Challenge grant, matched by $4.3 million J. Paul Getty Trust grant, matched by @ $6 million from local funders raised by National Arts Education Consortium members Totaling: @ $15 million for 1,600 teachers; 25,000 students $2,344/ teacher/ year during project Resources now vary widely among regional organizations. Findings : Dennie Palmer Wolf report on Annenberg Challenge (Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University and Wolf) TETAC Final Project Report (Killeen), based on Westat evaluation: Successful areas based on teacher belief: Using arts to make connections across other subjects Providing needed materials Developing curriculum units Challenging areas included: Educator turnover – new strategies were needed to introduce teachers new to CAE as the more seasoned group moved forward. Evaluators found little evidence of any connection between CAE and changes on scores in math, reading, writing, or the arts assessment. Yet, teachers believe the project affected students’ thinking, including in making connections across the curriculum, fluency, and question articulation- all of which may not have been measured in the existing standardized tests. Based on teacher belief: Integrating technology Adequate planning time (Killeen)p.54 Case study of Getty – LEARN (Los Angeles Educational Alliance for Restructuring Now) Collaboration focused on eight schools in Fairfax community(Rebuilding Arts Education in Urban Schools: Issues and Challenges) Administrative support. Principals need to be fully supportive and have ownership of the change. Memo of understanding and minimal institute participation was not enough even with $250,000/ year for four years for the eight school cluster. Without this, teachers do not have guidance, support, or permission to truly change practice. Link to existing education reform efforts In this time, observed changes in interest levels of 1/3 teachers, including high school teachers, increasing their interest in integration of arts with other areas. Challenges: Interdisciplinary teaching – teachers need to learn how to use two sets of curricula When educators are expected to radically change practice, they need more scaffolding, time, content background and buy-in Don’t randomly choose the pioneers of change, identify the ones most interested in participation Extra money for arts education reform can be taken for granted, since it’s not built into the school plan and budget. The district-wide pressure to boost scores in areas tested by high stakes standardized tests is real, and can pull attention from arts reforms, since arts were not included in testing framework. While time enough to develop interest, not enough time to develop skills. Lessons Learned: Improving instruction in the arts: Comprehensive curricula. the importance of the broader approach of CAE Thematic instruction. “Organizing inquiry in the arts around enduring ideas guides students in understanding the philosophical, religious, ethical and social sources that form the foundation of the arts,” reflects TETAC project manager Donald Killeen (Killeen)p.69. Inquiry-based strategies. Active learning promotes real-life connections, leads learners to develop their own questions and inquiry. Teachers need to know both arts and inquiry techniques. Arts specialists and classroom teachers benefit from deepening their ability to facilitate inquiry-based learning. Quantify student learning in the arts. To measure learning in the arts and advocate for its support, more standardized and quantitative tools are needed. Broad use is needed to expand the database of what’s known. Many other lessons learned are shared in the final project report, including in areas around integrating arts in school curriculum and changing school culture to support the arts. A few key lessons for professional development planners include: Elevate status of arts specialists. As the content specialists, they need to be brought to the school center, away from the periphery. By taking part in key curriculum planning efforts, they can help ensure the quality of arts incorporation in school reform. Encourage collaborative planning. Teachers working together to plan curriculum for the school offer important opportunities to integrate the arts into school environments. Participating arts specialists can shape not only the curriculum, but may also help their colleagues deepen their understanding and value of arts in education. Self-reflection critical. One priority for professional development: providing educators tools to focus their own systematic reflection on their practice. Cultivate an atmosphere of continuous learning. Students as collaborators. Empower students to pursue their own inquiries, shifting teacher role from leader to mentor. Ongoing and focused professional improvement. Rather than a quick workshop, professional growth takes place over the long term. When given context, and linked to school goals and the larger educational reform environment, it becomes more powerful and can be an instrument of change (Killeen). Guidance for evaluation of large-scale reform effort: Find an outside voice. Using Westat brought a firm familiar with education, but less so arts education. The fresh eyes and expertise uncovered some dissonance in approaches and views that could be addressed before too late. Moved from a summative approach – not useful to evolution of the work – to a balance between formative and summative. Be specific. When the project was well implemented, TETAC schools scored high on a project implementation scale (see useful tools). With high ratings, the evaluators found some of the following elements: Strong leadership team. Teacher and administrator leader teams met regularly, and discussed planning, curriculum, professional development, funding, and external communications. Principal support backed by school board. Not only was the principal supportive, but when there was turnover, school boards considered candidates commitment to the arts-based education reform when hiring the replacement. Arts evaluation. A sensitive, politically challenging area that was rarely addressed, but the highest rating places either included arts in teacher evaluations or had ongoing internal evaluation of arts programs. Interscholastic network. Connections to groups of other schools seemed difficult to sustain, but happened in highest rated schools. (Killeen)p.48-49. Useful Tools: Regional organizations: The California Consultancy for Arts Education (formerly The California Consortium for Arts Education) http://www.ccaeinc.org/ The Florida Institute for Art Education http://www.fsu.edu/~svad/FIAE/ The North Texas Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts http://www.art.unt.edu/ntieva/ Prairie Visions: The Nebraska Consortium for Arts Education http://www.unomaha.edu/fineart/art/arted.htm (the former) Ohio Partnership for the Visual Arts http://arted.osu.edu/OPVA/index.html The Southeast Center for Education in the Arts http://www.sceaonline.com/ References: The Arts and School Reform: Lessons and Possibilities From the Annenberg Challenge Arts Projects. Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University and Dennie Palmer Wolf. 2003. KD Kurtz email to Dawn M. Ellis Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:02 PM Killeen, Donald J., National Arts Education Consortium. Transforming Education Through the Arts Challenge. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. Transforming Education Through the Arts Challenge Final Project Report. Donald J. et al Killeen. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University .

Target Population:
Arts Specialists

Classroom Teachers

Education Administrators

Other Educators

Parents

Teaching Artists

Arts Discipline:
Dance

Interdisciplinary

Music

Theatre/Drama

Visual Arts

Entry Points:
Inquire

Deepen

Sustain

Education Thread:
Evaluation