Corrections and apology

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on................................."

I would like to apologize for the following inexcusable errors in yesterday's 2011 Top 25 listing post:

First to Kate Levin for getting her name wrong and listing her as Kate Lerner;

Second, to Ra Joy and Donna Collins. Ra Joy is the head of the Arts Alliance Illinois and was erroneously listed as the head of the Ohio Citizens for the Arts - which is run by Donna Collins - whose name should have been listed jointly with Ra Joy. In all the cutting and pasting involved in this blog, somehow an early draft of that section made it to the final post; and

Third, John McGuirk is the Program DIRECTOR of the Performing Arts Program at the Hewlett Foundation.

Finally, Diane Ragsdale informs me she was "a program staffer" at the Mellon Foundation. 

These errors were completely my fault and I am solely responsible. Though unintended, this is completely unprofessional, and I am sincerely embarassed, and apologize to each of the above individuals and to all the readers.

Corrections have now been made on the site itself. 

Don't Quit (although perhaps its getting closer to the time I ought to).

Barry

2011 Top 25 Most Powerful and Influential Leaders in the Nonprofit Arts

Good morning.
“And the beat goes on……………………………………..”

This is the fourth annual Barry’s Blog Ranking of the Top 25 Most Powerful and Influential Leaders in the Nonprofit Arts.

I again asked leaders from all parts of our sector and all parts of the country (some 75 this year) – from large and small organizations – national, regional and local – and from different disciplines and demographics to send me their nominations for the most powerful and influential leaders in our field.  The process was anonymous and none of the nominators knew the identity of any of the other nominators.   At least 50% of the nominators in a given year are different from the previous year.  All were free to nominate anyone they thought qualified, including themselves - the only caveat being that this was about arts administration and organizational leadership, and so I asked that we leave artists off this list (that’s a whole other ranking).

As I have said before, this is, I believe, important because these people largely determine how the debates in our sector are framed and what the agendas will be. They are the people who control much, if not most of the money, and decide where the funding goes (at least in broad swatches), what issues should be on the front burner, and what we talk about when we meet. They influence our goals and objectives, our priorities and the positions we take – and even the way we do things.  They can ‘green light’ new programs and projects and are chiefly responsible for prioritizing which challenges we address. In large part, they are our most experienced and knowledgeable people – our best thinkers, and established power brokers.  I think it of value to know who we think these people are.  Like every other field or profession, there are those in the nonprofit arts who are powerful and influential.  To pretend that any world (ours included) is not stratified, tiered, territorial and subject to politics and disproportionately controlled by an oligarchy at the top is naïve.  I believe the people who work in our field are passionate and motivated and seek the higher good, but I also recognize that they are human beings, and that our field isn’t some separate and perfect world – and that power and influence are tangible currency – sometimes spent wisely, other times needlessly squandered.

Power is defined as “the capability of doing or accomplishing something; the possession of control or command over others; authority.”  Influence is defined as “the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others”.  Thus this ranking does not purport to measure impact, creativity, accomplishment or lasting effect – but rather who has the ability and capacity to get things done and move others to get things done – and in this case on a large stage -  or (perhaps even more importantly) who is perceived as having that ability, for the perception itself confers a degree of power and influence.  This ranking does not attempt to measure or evaluate anyone’s job performance or skill sets.

Nominees could come from any area within our field. Their power and influence could come from their position, the prestige of their organization, who they are, what they have done, how long they have been in the field, how highly they are respected, personal charisma, the fact that they control purse strings (or grants in our case) or whatever criteria the nominator chose.

Each nominee was expected to have the capacity to exert influence in, and on, our field (either as a whole or on some distinct section therein) – how we arrive at policy, what agendas are set, who is considered an expert or not, what research is important, where money is spent, how we fundraise and market, etc. etc. etc. Some nominees may be universally highly respected, others may have more than their share of detractors – the criterion is power and influence – not popularity – or even necessarily accomplishment (though I think all of these people have considerable accomplishments to their credit).  Inclusion on the list isn’t to imply these leaders have smooth sailing even within their spheres of influence. This really wasn’t a beauty contest.  Nominators might strongly disagree with someone on issues and even dislike them, but still recognize that the person is powerful and influential.  

The rankings reflect an attempt at balancing the actions, power and influence of leaders over the course of the past year, and prospectively for the coming year.  Many names submitted have been on the list previously.  Some of those ranked in the higher numbers may be nearing the end of their tenure in the position they currently occupy, for others the activities that pushed them to the forefront may have passed and they may now be receding into a lower profile. The power and influence of others may be on the rise as they assume new posts, are thrust into the center of new projects or otherwise see their stars rising. Still others may be in transition.

Leaders come and go, move from one post to another and their fortunes and the fortunes of the organizations they lead change from year to year, as do both the circumstances in which they operate and their own level of activity and involvement.  Thus some leaders included on this list one year, may not be on the radar screen of my nominators the next year. Some move up in the rankings, while others fall down or off the list.  Admittedly this is but a subjective exercise, and this ranking is but a limited snapshot in time.  As such this list is, of course, incomplete and flawed. It is just an attempt to identify those perceived as being powerful and influential within our small world.  Doubtless a different group of nominators may have come up with a different list – though I believe this grouping is likely as representative as you can get.  No insult is meant to anyone whose name is not on the list, and I am sure there are many people whose names should be on the list. While I personally agree with most of the final selections, as in prior years there are some I find very surprising. I am also confused by the omission of others that I would have thought would have been consensus inclusions. And while there are many repeats from previous lists, there are also many new names this year.  

There are, of course, countless unsung, brilliant leaders in our field – whose exemplary accomplishments and contributions are known to but a small circle and whose reputations are thus not yet widely established.  That they did not make this list in no way diminishes their contributions; rather it is more likely an indication that they are not yet, for whatever reason, perceived as having as much power and influence as others in our field.  Doubtless the profile of many of these leaders will rise over time.  Others may move on.  This list includes principally individuals who operate on a national stage, and most have long term tenures in the field and years of experience.

è Note:    I recognize that there ought to be a mechanism to single out those individuals who are gaining increasing respect from their peers in the field and who are thought to be the future of the nonprofit arts, but who may not yet have achieved any status as powerful or influential.  I have been working on, and will announce later this winter a new feature of the blog that will try to identify, honor, and acknowledge those leaders in our field who are increasingly impactful, innovative, and creative  --  those who are providing game changing leadership with truly new thinking and approaches, and those who are questioning some of the old assumptions and positing other ways to address the complex issues we face, and give that new cohort of the best and brightest of our future their due recognition and a voice.  It’s a new and creative concept and approach and I hope it will be interesting to the readership.   It will not, however, be another Top List. 

This year I have added what seem to me the big challenges for each of the Top Five Leaders.

And finally:   Don’t shoot me.  I’m just the messenger.

Neither I, nor any employee at WESTAF, (which distributes this blog, but in no way has any part whatsoever as the author or originator of this list) was eligible for inclusion on this ranking. 

Here then is this year’s Ranking:

The Top Ten:

1.     Janet Brown – Executive Director, Grantmakers in the Arts

She has re-fashioned, re-positioned and re-energized GIA for the future and in the process made it an emerging central policy powerhouse.  With the cuts to public funding as a backdrop, under her leadership GIA has become even more visible and influential.   As one of her boosters noted:  “Janet has brought a fresh and grounded approach to arts philanthropy, which has re-focused a lens on issues that are much more relevant to a much broader segment of the arts community as a whole. “  And as another noted:   “She is successfully harnessing and better positioning America's arts funders to affect public policy. She's reaching across sectors to other funders to get things done. She is my hero!!”   Her challenge is to see through what she has started and deliver on the promise of the major changes she wants to see happen.  Promoting change is hard enough – sustaining it is often more challenging.

2.      Bob Lynch – President and CEO Americans for the Arts

Re-energized himself this year, he has been increasingly vocal and unwilling to parse his words in the effort to defend arts funding – and his candor and frankness have found a wider audience for him and the AFTA empire – which continues to simply be the premier arts organization in the country with fingers in everything from developing emerging leaders, to arts education policy formation, to defense of the NEA, to facilitating business intersections and political partnerships, to research.  While AFTA may be a boomer centric organization, he and AFTA represent the very best of what that generation has done for the arts in America.  Everything arts administrators do today owes something, in part anyway, to him and AFTA.  His job is to keep AFTA in the forefront – and the challenge will be to keep it relevant by capturing the hearts and minds of the next generation of leaders,

3.     Rocco Landesman – Chair of the National Endowment for the Arts

Despite a misstep here or there, his efforts to broker intersections and partnerships with other federal agencies and his attempts to continue to keep the Endowment  positioned to be a bi-partisan benefit across the whole country have helped (so far anyway) to keep the Endowment safe and relevant.  Rumors that he may step down following the 2012 election seem to have quieted down.  His charm and style make him popular and trusted and there is no question he thinks long and hard about how to do this job well and what is good for the Endowment.  The challenge will be how well he can deal with the coming increased pressure to cut or eliminate the agency as the T-Party moves to force hard decisions on deficit reduction.  The wolves remain at the door.  His job will be to keep them at bay.

4.     Jonathan Katz – Executive Director, National Association of State Arts Agencies

He has stepped up to the plate and provided strong leadership to his constituents and the field as a whole in the face of this year’s massive attacks on state funding to the arts, and in so doing has propelled himself back into the forefront of those to whom the field is turning for guidance.  His expertise, experience, and ability to cut through the b.s. and get to the heart of the issues and arguments helped more than one state weather the storm.  Championing more consolidation and collaboration he is trying to move a field long in the grips of doing things only one way into the future. As the leader of the State Arts Agency field, he has to figure out how to keep them alive, functioning and relevant to their constituents in an ever changing and more challenging economic environment.

5.     Michael Kaiser  - Executive Director, Kennedy Center for the Arts; author

Not quite as omnipresent as last year, he continues to post sometimes provocative, but almost always at least relevant thoughts via the Huffington Post and other venues and remains a highly visible advocate for professional development and uncompromising excellence in programming.   He has captured the attention of both arts boards and the public beyond the arts in communities across the country.  One nominator said this:  “He is the closest thing our field has to a consensus management guru, and his fundraising prowess is legendary. He seems heavily focused on building the DeVos Institute these days, and it remains to be seen whether his influence will wax or wane once he’s shifted to exclusively manning that helm.”  He remains one of the sector’s most visible and listened to spokespeople.  His challenge is to make the DeVos Institute a game changer. 

6.       Foundation Funders:

·       Olive Mosier - Director, Arts & Culture Program, The William Penn Foundation

Her star continues to rise each year and she is now firmly established as one of the pre-eminent arts program officers in the country.  Her “model stewardship” approach is increasingly capturing the attention of the entire funding community and beyond.

·        Dennis Scholl, Director, Arts Program, Knight Foundation

An innovative thinker who has gained a lot of attention with out-of-the-box funding strategies that have captured the imagination of the field. 

7.     Adam Huttler  - Executive Director, Fractured Atlas

As one person said:  “When someone asks me to look at which national organization do you most want to be like and why, I turn to Fractured Atlas. It is not interested in change for change sake but is vested in looking at new business models that can actually make a difference.  He is nimble and fresh and leads a young sharp team.  Sign me up!”   As Adam himself notes: “With 17,000+ members, Fractured Atlas has the largest membership of any arts service organization in the country. We are just beginning to explore ways of flexing that muscle on Capitol Hill. When we crack that nut, we’ll be a juggernaut.”

8.     Russell Willis Taylor – President & CEO, National Arts Strategies

She continues to provide the means and mechanisms that lead the effort to develop new and emerging  talent, as well as provide meaningful and new approaches for advancing the skills of existing leadership.  And, as one person noted: “Russell personally helps push the field into self assessment, a (much)needed activity right now.”

9.       Advocates:

·       Betty Plumb –  Executive Director, South Carolina Arts Alliance

Tireless workhorse and one of the major reasons the South Carolina state arts agency survived repeated attempts by the Governor to zero out its funding.  Old school advocacy guru who knows how to rally the troops and send the message home.  Described by one admirer as “masterful and inspirational”, she is highly respected for a job well done, and her efforts and organization are the model for a defense of an agency under attack.  As one person put it: “She’s the one you want in your corner in a fight like we had in South Carolina.”

·        Ra Joy  -  Arts Alliance Illinois
     Donna Collins - Ohio Citizens for the Arts

Understanding the value of building relationships over a long period of time, two of the country’s best run advocacy organizations – Arts Alliance of Illinois and the Ohio Citizens for the Arts – pulled off the impossible this year – getting their legislatures to each add significant new money to the state arts agency budget.  

10.  Alan Brown – Principal, Wolf Brown Consulting

Brown remains at the top of the heap of an increasingly larger group of consultant researchers and experts.  No one has more influence in designing the audience research methodologies being used, or in setting the research agendas.

And the rest:

11.   The Major Urban Arts Leaders:

·       Laura Zucker - Executive Director, Los Angeles County Commission on Arts & Culture

The apex of what it means to be an arts professional.  She is not only one of the best big city arts administrators in the field, she is one of the best arts administrators to ever occupy the seat.

·       Michael Spring, Director Miami-Dade County Department of Cultural Affairs

Long tenured big city arts leader who deftly handles continuing local changes and challenges and still finds time to provide national LAA and advocacy leadership.  As one person put it: “He is simply in a class by himself.”

·       Gary Steuer – Chief Cultural Officer, City of Philadelphia

Increasing influence in the Philly metro area and beyond due, in part, to his ability to promote partnerships and collaborations.   He has a business perspective and an arts sensibility.

·       Kate Levin –  Commissioner, New York City Department of Cultural Affairs

One well placed observer noted:  “she controls by far the biggest arts funding budget in the nation, in what remains the cultural capital of the Western world. Perhaps she isn’t known very well outside New York City, but here she can move mountains when she wants to.

·       Victoria Hamilton –  Executive Director, San Diego Office of Arts & Culture

Recipient of this year’s United States Urban Arts Federation’s Ray Hanley Innovation award , host of the AFTA Convention and still able to keep the city’s arts scene alive and flourishing amid huge challenges, she is also on the list of the best of the locals leadership.

12.   The Americans for the Arts Inner Circle:

·       Randy Cohen – Vice President of Research and Policy

The king of arts research data bases, and increasingly the highly effective roving ambassador for AFTA.  He’s everywhere and knows everyone, and his networking skills are second to none.  Very likely that only Bob knows more about all the disparate parts of AFTA than Randy does.

·       Nina Ozlu Tunceli – Chief Counsel of Government and Public Affairs

The principal architect of the defense of the NEA over the past two decades.  THE expert in arts advocacy in America.

13.   Other funders:

·       Ben Cameron  - Program Director for the Arts, Doris Duke Foundation

Even though his stump speeches are more predictable, he remains the most sought after speaker in the entire sector and his oratory skills are matched by his ability to analyze and convey the gut essence of the issues we face.  Inspiring and motivating.  As one person described him: “He’s the guy you want to explain things to anyone you want to convince of something. “

·       John McGuirk – Program Director, Performing Arts Program, Hewlett Foundation

Very likely the most powerful funding voice in California and increasingly active in GIA, his cachet is rising across the country.  One nominator observed:  “John is quickly learning how to get things done quietly behind the scenes.  He is maturing into more of a ‘player’.”  His influence on policy is increasing.

14.   Arts Education:

·       Sandra Rupert – Executive Director, Arts Education Partnership

Still the national clearinghouse for arts education efforts and policy debate, AEP under Sandra’s leadership continues to grapple and make sense of one of the most complex set of challenges the arts sector faces.

·       Richard Kessler -  Dean of The Mannes College New School for Music ; immediate past Executive Director of The Center for Arts Education.

One of, if not the most widely respected voices in the arts education arena.

·       Eric Booth – Consultant

Widely regarded and sought after speaker / panelist / facilitator.  As one person noted:  “He only takes on projects that matter and has consistently challenged arts leaders to become community leaders in new ways.”

15.   State Arts Agencies:

·       Philip Horn – Executive Director – Pennsylvania Council  on the Arts

He continues to impress people with his ability to keep his agency relevant, and for his reputation among his peers as knowledgeable, savvy and strategic in his thinking.  One of the last standing state arts agency leaders from pre 2000, he has a huge fan base for his no-nonsense approach to keeping the home fires lit and the machines all up and running.

·       Arnie Fishbaugh – Executive Director, Montana State Arts Council

She continues to keep her agency one step ahead of every funding and other challenge that relentlessly dog her by her astute consensus building and by being creative.  She is the penultimate leader of a small state arts effort.  She knows how to work a room, and for her, the entire state of Montana is the ‘room’.

16.   Steven Tepper  - Deputy Director of the Curb Center of Art, Enterprise & Public Policy

Though Bill Ivey has been less of a presence over the past year, Steven Tepper’s schedule has gotten busier as he continues to develop his policy chops and gain respect for his practical approach.  Clearly one of the sector’s leading policy wonks.

17.   Behind the scenes at the Endowment:

·       Joan Shikegawa Senior Deputy Chairman / Patrice Walker Powell  Deputy Chairman for Programs and Partnerships

The powers behind the throne, while Rocco is on the road, these two translate the ideas into action and really run the agency.

18.   Gigi Antoni  - Executive Director, Big Thought, Dallas Texas

Highly respected policy wonk with notable success in moving arts education forward in the face of all obstacles.  Strong national presence.   Her fan base is growing as her profile gets wider play. 

19.   Emerging Leaders:

·       Ian Moss – Blogger / Research Director - Fractured Atlas

As one person put it”  “He’s the strongest, most provocative, well connected arts blogger that exists today and puts all others to shame.  He is willing to challenge the status quo and forces action instead of ambivalence.” 

·       Ebony McKinney – Founding Director, San Francisco Bay Area Emerging Arts Professionals

One person observed that: “While she may be quiet and unassuming, she’s built the most successful model emerging arts leader organization in the country.”  Respected voice throughout the growing emerging leaders field.

·       Danielle Brazell – Executive Director, Arts for LA

       Growing acclaim for her job as head of the Los Angeles based arts advocacy group, she continues to gain experience and hone her chops as she is fast becoming one of the foremost spokespeople for arts advocacy – especially at the local level. 

·       Helena Fruscio, Director, Berkshire Creative

Innovative new face on the scene who knows how to develop unique partnerships with community leaders to advance the arts. 

20.   Jesse Rosen, President and CEO, League of American Orchestras

As one person put it: “The symphony world keeps hoping the clock will return to the mid 1990s and all will be well.  Jesse knows better and, against lots of field pressure, is trying to push the rock up the hill.”

21.   Jim Copenhaver – Senior Partner of the consulting firm of J C Enterprises - Focused Learning / Interim Executive Director APAP

Long time consultant with decades of nonprofit arts experience, he is enjoying an increased profile as the interim Executive Director of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters while Sandra Gibson transitions out.

22.   Diane Ragsdale – blogger

One nominator noted that while she had more real power as the head of the Mellon   Foundation (Note: Diane says she was neither the head of the foundation nor even of the arts program, but rather a staffer), she seems to have even more influence with her blog – which is universally read by the national leadership of the sector.  She continues to zero in on issues the rest of the sector more often skirts and walks around.  She gets people to say what they think.

23.   Rachel Goslins – Executive Director, The President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities

With the publication of the excellent and well received report:  “Reinvesting in Arts Education: Winning America’s Future Through Creative Schools” she has seized what many observers were criticizing as a squandered opportunity of the Obama Administration to use the all too underutilized committee’s bully pulpit to impact policy, and in the process revitalized and made again relevant an all too invisible agency.

24.   Doug McClennan – Editor the Arts Journal

The online clearinghouse of nonprofit arts related media coverage and sector blogs - Arts Journal - has become an institution itself.  Doug’s had a fairly low public profile this year, but the Journal’s sphere of influence continues to grow.

25.   State legislators in Kansas, South Carolina and across the country that over rode Gubernatorial arts fund veto votes in attempts to save state arts agencies and funding across the country (with notable successes and an admirable attempt in Kansas).

Bubbling under:

·         Scott Provancher, President, Arts & Science Council – Charlotte, North Carolina

·         Arnie Aprill, Founder / Creative Director CAPE (Chicago Arts Partnerships in   Education)

·         Regina Smith –  Senior Program Officer, Arts and Culture, Kresge Foundation

·         Sarah Cunningham – Director of Education, National Endowment of the Arts

BARRY’S PERSONAL TOP TEN NODS:      People (in no particular order) that I have had close contact with, whom I respect and admire and whom I think deserve recognition for doing an exemplary job.  Some previously on the main list, some not.   Prerogative of the author – entirely personal.

·         Julie Fry – Program Officer – Performing Arts  –      Hewlett Foundation

·         Diane Matarazza – Consultant

·         Bill Cleveland – Director, Center for the Study of Art & Community

·         Mara Walker – COO Americans for the Arts

·         Marian Godfrey  – Senior Director, Cultural Initiatives, The Pew Foundation

·         Kris Tucker – Executive Director,  Washington State Arts Commission

·         Frances Phillips –Program Director, Arts & The Creative Work Fund, Haas Fund

·         Brad Erickson – Executive Director, Theater Bay Area

·         Dalouge Smith -  President and CEO of the San Diego Youth Symphony

·         Andrew Taylor – Director - BOLZ CENTER for Arts Administration / University of Wisconsin – Madison School of Business

Have a great week everyone.

Don’t Quit.

Barry

Next Week: 2011 Top 25 Most Powerful and Influential Ranking

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on......................"

No Blog.  On vacation.

NEXT WEEK:  BARRY’S BLOG FOURTH ANNUAL RANKING OF THE 25 MOST POWERFUL AND INFLUENTIAL LEADERS IN THE NONPROFIT ARTS.

Don’t Quit.

Barry

Arts Education Blog Forum - Final Wrap Up

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on.........................."

Final Thoughts:

I would like to thank all of the responders who participated in this forum over the past month. Julie Fry and I are both grateful for their time and for their insights, thoughts and keen observations.  This was, I think, an outstanding discussion.

I am especially indebted to Julie for all of her help and support in making this Forum possible. I have no illusions that I would have been able to assemble such a stellar list of responders or been able to so intelligently frame the issues and questions on my own. To the extent this was of value to the field and a success, the credit belongs largely to her. She is the consummate professional and few in the field are more conversant with all the myriad issues and challenges in the arts education arena. 

Personally, I am left with as many questions as answers. Reading all of the comments by all of the participants over the past month, my overall feeling is that arts education has so many levels of complexity that addressing the main goal of getting arts education in every school is Herculean to say the least. Our whole approach seems to be vivisected, with each facet of the challenge compartmentalized and isolated, with too little overall, comprehensive organization to our thinking and actions. I would hope that we could address that challenge by moving forward with the development of one national policy on arts education - one that could be adapted to local circumstances but which would promote consensus messages. The PCAH Report and the work of AFTA are good places to start, but only a start.

Otherwise two major concerns stand out to me:

1. We have to be more practical and realistic in our approaches, and dial down too much lofty rhetoric about some ideal that we are chasing and take into account two realities and make them a part of every discussion on every aspect of arts education:

First, the politics of things - from local government and school districts to that of the wider education reform debate (and acknowledge that politics plays a part in everything from how, when and where we advocate to research, to arts integration and beyond); and

Second, the actual costs of doing any of the things we talk about. We simply must include identifcation of funding streams for any and all proposals at every level. Otherwise we are just whistling in the wind.

2. Because of the dollar costs involved, I think the equity issue of access to arts education will unquestionably continue to result in some (wealthier) districts providing at least some arts education, and many more, little or nothing at all. And so the danger is not just that many kids in whole generations do not (will not) get arts, but that others do, and if we are right that arts education is essential for a well rounded, quality education and preparation to be competitive in this world, then the net result is an increasingly have and have not world and the gap between those will widen further.

Julie:  To Barry’s comment in #1 above, I would also add public will: in order to move the politics and secure the funding, the public needs to demand that the arts are part of every child’s school experience – for the learning, problem-solving, team-building opportunities it provides children, for the importance of creativity and innovation to our economy, for a civil society.

I agree that the field has been fragmented, and is likely to remain that way – one size does not fit all in the mosaic of learning in and through the arts. While a national policy may help provide some guidance and cohesion, I think the most important work is happening locally and regionally. Overall, this is an education issue, and should be part of the national debate that is taking place on education reform.

I'd like to add my sincere thanks to Barry for his probing questions about the arts education field, his grand enthusiasm for this endeavor, and his generosity in devoting a month's worth of blog space to the discussion! This is much appreciated by the field, Barry.

Again thank you everyone!

Don't Quit
Barry

Arts Education Blog Forum - Final Week Follow Up Questions

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on............................."

Week 4 Follow Up Questions:

Day 1, Question 1:

1. Sandra talks about coming together on common messages in arts education, with the PCAH research providing a few key points that we can all get behind. Who is the “we” in this case? Do the key recommendations coming out of the report resonate with people who are not in the arts education field? How do we go about leveraging a report like this to build public will in a way that translates directly to specific constituents – parents, students, policymakers, educators - and meets them where they are? As Sandra states, the definitions of key terms alone are enough of a barrier to further engagement in the discussion.

2. Some have cited as a fundamental flaw in the PCAH report the absence of any discussion about the costs of implementing the recommendations, and that without some integration of consideration as to where the funds might come from, the report ends up somewhat meaningless and irrelevant. How do you respond to that criticism? Should we zero in and prioritize the recommendations based on funding considerations?  Which recommendations are short term, which are longer term?

3. Narric mentions a number of national and state research reports from the past few years that can help inform the debate on arts education on a broader level. However, when policy is driven from a bottom-up approach, what can the more local and regional arts education advocates do to provide data to the local decision makers? As Narric says, information has to be used by those engaging in public debate; how do we make that information resonate more effectively at a variety of levels?

4. Is there really any "public" debate about arts education going on at all? Isn't whatever debate and discussion that is happening basically within the arts sector and not even within the larger education community - let alone the public? How do we make the debate a truly "public" debate?


Day 2, Question 1:

1. To Chris’s point, where are the gaps in arts education evaluation and research? And how much data is too much? Who can come up with a “simple” common research agenda, who funds it, who does it in a way that has credibility outside of the arts education field? What do decision makers outside of the field need to know in order to make favorable policy and funding decisions?

Chris Shearer: These are great questions and, frankly, where the devil lives for reformers. I am by no means a research designer nor am I an Arts Education expert, but I see a few possible answers woven into the questions themselves.

For example, could we ask proven Arts advocates inside Congress or state capitals what research THEY want to see? What results THEY would value to help them make the case? Back in the days of free-flowing earmarks, Arts did have supportive policymakers who ensured at least a modest spotlight in authorizing language and at least some appropriations funding. These same folks may be the best place to start a discussion for the future.

I am a big fan of asking major research shops to conduct evaluations. They often help signal an issue’s importance by even accepting the work. Their results have import. They have very strong signaling and dissemination capacity to fuel future research. Not everyone agrees with me here, but I still throw out the idea as one solution.

It is hard but essential for Arts Educators to come together and ask, “What measures can we agree to in common?” “What results would we consider essential to our collective efforts?” This is hard, hard work, but it is not a debt-ceiling debate. We can expect it to yield actionable results without permanently ruffling feathers, even in a relatively small community.

I am for prioritizing fewer and better-prioritized sets of data to start. Once Arts has some more signature studies on impact, the research ecosystem will emerge more clearly. The relative need for smaller or even replicated studies will show up after a few, higher-profile issues are assessed. Larry-like sophistication regarding agenda- and study-design will be essential.

Finally, I’d ask researchers in other better-studied education sectors to help define what the most obvious gaps are in Arts Ed research. I’d ask. “What do the well-funded, more broadly supported fields do?” “What do they need to prove their point or to foster innovation?”

2. - All of our responders have indicated the value of various types of research to moving forward an arts education agenda. Are we in danger of assigning too much problem-solving responsibility to arts learning? Are we forgetting about those intrinsic values – the joy of creating art, the ability of young people to self-express, have fun together, take risks, figure out how to play “Purple Haze” just like Jimi Hendrix, for no other reason than to play like Hendrix – in the need to justify the existence of arts in schools?

Chris Shearer: I make it a point never to disagree with someone as nice, smart, and influential as Bernie Trilling. Full stop.

What I hear him saying, though, is that there are strong trend-lines in research that make us optimistic. That a major new research study is underway around the “deeper learning” mix of knowledge + skills that should help inform our discussions. That there are many sites where the Arts are being well-taught in their own right, or where Arts are an essential element of rigorous academic study and performance-based demonstrations of student achievement.

What I think Bernie and I would agree on is that – with strong trends, clear exemplars, and growing examples of Arts and 21st Century Skills travelling together – we now can and should redouble our attention to research on proof points. Maybe we start by asking someone to pull together a compelling narrative we can share with non-experts around what we already know from the evidence base. Then we can kick-off a new discussion about what research we want to see going forward.

I know of no discipline that better blends teaching to exemplars while encouraging individual creativity (often, complexly, within a team approach). In other words, the Arts in practice are uniquely open to critique. Uniquely open to revision toward excellence. Uniquely given to public presentation. Arts Education – though better research – can conform to that heritage and simultaneously foster improvement and build broader support.

Parting shot. These questions of utility, emphasis, and implementation are vital. Regardless of where Arts Ed ends up on them. They are a part of a larger discussion that I see as being about whether or not Arta gets the place it deserves in every child’s education. Remember Picasso’s dictum: “He can who thinks he can, and he can't who thinks he can’t.”

3. In the politics of decision making at the government level, research is often embraced or denied based on the position the 'politician' wants or needs to take. It provides cover for those disposed to be supportive, and a place to attack for those who are not . Where do "research" and politics intersect in terms of arts education and to what extent should that phenomenon be taken into account in our research models - especially if one of the primary goals of research is to impact political decision making?

4. Chris implies that we are really in the very earliest stages in terms of credible, reliable research and advises that we do more, and focus in on what kind we should do as we create that research agenda. Larry similarly questions how far we really are in design of our research. In contrast to both Chris and Larry, Bernie says there is little doubt the arts do most of the things we claim they do. Which is it? Do we have credible research to make the case now, or do we need more? If we need more, what else do we need?

5. Is a vibrant and healthy “climate” conducive to creativity just that -- an ecosystem that does not itself make creativity happen, but rather encourages, nurtures and supports it happening. And if so, then how do we conduct research into how the arts plays a part in the growth of that kind of ecosystem as opposed to arguing the direct link of an arts education to the very specific skills that we claim are part of, and linked to, creativity and the creative instinct?

Final wrap up tomorrow.

Don't Quit
Barry