View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Appraising Metropolitan Arts Education Partnerships: A Policy Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Appraising Metropolitan Arts Education Partnerships: A Policy Analysis
Language: English
Authors: Ryan D. Shaw (ORCID 0000-0003-0819-8480), Cara Faith Bernard (ORCID 0000-0002-8899-0170)
Source: Arts Education Policy Review. 2025 126(3):147-160.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Art Education, Partnerships in Education, Educational Policy, Metropolitan Areas, Stakeholders, Educational Objectives, Access to Education, Outcome Measures
Geographic Terms: Illinois (Chicago), Massachusetts (Boston), Washington (Seattle), Texas (Houston), Oregon (Portland)
DOI: 10.1080/10632913.2023.2277941
ISSN: 1063-2913
1940-4395
Abstract: Over the past 20 years, some of the most notable arts education policy initiatives have taken place in urban areas with the creation of metropolitan arts education partnerships. Aside from a few impact studies and isolated reports, little research exists that specifically analyzes their policy implications. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the formation of high-profile metropolitan arts education partnerships. Research questions were: 1) What stakeholders are involved and how do they interact? 2) How are the metropolitan arts partnerships framed?, and 3) What are the goals and metrics associated with the partnerships? Using a policy-focused multiple case study approach, data collection included document analysis and interviews with key stakeholders from five partnerships. There were a variety of structures behind the partnerships, and stakeholders described interactions in terms of collective impact and negotiations over agendas. Partnerships were framed around equitable access to arts education alongside more sentimentalized rhetoric about the power of the arts. Finally, partnerships collected data on both arts-specific and non-arts-specific metrics to track progress.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1475524
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFgx9h8Vn1mF4nOdzCeKWowAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAaZuT4ec7UoHXD8agIBEICBmzEpp1mV4va5hgK2wQk5c1vjxVrFB_wnIDt4H5pOrLwXIzBGmNlGBd7jLPKILhfst_33cnbIL-Lyabrnzri7GBGVsYumzdg334E-InILWLd-YonGFI5RL1u2D8CxHbbsebcgtl_6uu9CCmS5og617KLaxaQFDCajUGypkl11LDgygmazmD0psvpTjiZF63dtW6wfebmiiibnV6kj
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186209105;aep01jul.25;2025Jun30.05:10;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186209105-1">Appraising metropolitan arts education partnerships: a policy analysis </title> <p>Over the past 20 years, some of the most notable arts education policy initiatives have taken place in urban areas with the creation of metropolitan arts education partnerships. Aside from a few impact studies and isolated reports, little research exists that specifically analyzes their policy implications. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the formation of high-profile metropolitan arts education partnerships. Research questions were: 1) What stakeholders are involved and how do they interact? 2) How are the metropolitan arts partnerships framed?, and 3) What are the goals and metrics associated with the partnerships? Using a policy-focused multiple case study approach, data collection included document analysis and interviews with key stakeholders from five partnerships. There were a variety of structures behind the partnerships, and stakeholders described interactions in terms of collective impact and negotiations over agendas. Partnerships were framed around equitable access to arts education alongside more sentimentalized rhetoric about the power of the arts. Finally, partnerships collected data on both arts-specific and non-arts-specific metrics to track progress.</p> <p>Keywords: Arts partnerships; third space policymaking; access; equity; urban education</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Over the past 20 years, some of the most notable arts education policy initiatives in the U.S. have taken place in large metropolitan areas (Catterall & Waldorf, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref1">15</reflink>]; Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref2">45</reflink>]). These metropolitan initiatives have followed a similar progression and timetable. First, data are collected on the availability of arts education in schools (positioned as a needs assessment of sorts), followed by the formation of a partnership/initiative[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>] and funding by philanthropic interests and governmental agencies (Bodilly et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>]). Once a partnership is formed, the partners create specific goals, collect data on the impacts of the program, and coordinate arts education services across schools. Perhaps the most prominent and earliest example of such a partnership was Big Thought in Dallas, Texas (see Wolf & Antoni, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref5">66</reflink>]), and many other large cities followed with initiatives of their own, including Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Portland, Baltimore, Houston, and others.</p> <p>The aforementioned partnerships provide a compelling means for examining arts education policy efforts for several reasons. First, these partnerships represent so-called "third-space" policymaking efforts, which combine public and private sectors to quickly mobilize policy initiatives. In other words, private organizations or agencies work in tandem with public school systems to create and implement policy. Programs such as Teach For America and private philanthropic organizations infiltrating public school settings have been described as examples of a third space policy effort (Ball, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]). More specifically in music education, third space policy efforts might be represented through programs like El Sistema or Music Will (formerly Little Kids Rock) (Shaw, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref7">56</reflink>]), which mobilize private funding to provide music education in school settings. Scholars have noted that such policymaking efforts are increasingly popular as a means of bypassing democratic debate (Leys, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref8">33</reflink>]; Schedler, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref9">50</reflink>]). Instead of a protracted vote to approve funding at the level of a school board or mayor's office, such conversations are circumvented by securing outside partners who offer funding and other resources. While third space policymaking is common in education, it is understudied in arts education.</p> <p>Second, these initiatives prioritize combating inequity—and seek to ensure a goal that all students in public schools have access to arts. The arts education field has grappled with disparities in access and participation, with reports and research finding persistent inequities (Abramo & Bernard, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>]: Bowen & Kisida, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>]; Elpus & Abril, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>]; McCarthy et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref13">38</reflink>]; Salvador & Allegood, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref14">49</reflink>]; Shaw & Auletto, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref15">59</reflink>]). In pursuit of equity and access to the arts, these initiatives focus on increasing participation in arts courses across school districts, creating arts experiences particularly for students who are labeled as economically disadvantaged as well as Black and Latine students who may lack consistent access to arts instruction (Ingenuity, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref16">27</reflink>]). An examination of these policy efforts, which have been undoubtedly successful in attracting resources, may illuminate the ways that equity is considered in arts education policymaking.</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-3">Review of literature</hd> <p>The current large scale metropolitan arts partnerships build upon thirty years of coordinated efforts to improve arts education in U.S. cities. Frequently, the earliest initiatives from the 1990s can be characterized as pilot arts integration partnerships (Catterall & Waldorf, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref17">15</reflink>]; Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref18">45</reflink>]). One of the earliest and best-known arts integration effort was the Chicago Arts Partnerships in Education (CAPE), founded in 1992 to provide arts integration curriculum experiences across clusters of schools in Chicago (Catterall & Waldorf, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>]). Another precursor to current partnerships was Los Angeles's ambitious ten-year arts plan launched in 1999, which included staffing commitments in the arts and partnerships across the district (see Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref20">45</reflink>]). The seeds of more recent partnerships are present in these 1990s examples, including a granting structure, funding from philanthropic and corporate sources, and an emphasis on measuring the impact of arts experiences on indicators like math and reading scores, academic engagement, and self-efficacy.</p> <p>Much of the literature on recent metropolitan arts partnerships comes from internal non-peer-reviewed studies on the impact of individual partnerships/initiatives. With titles like <emph>Dancing to the Top: How Collective Action Revitalized Arts Education in Boston</emph> (EdVestors, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref21">19</reflink>]), these reports are mostly in the form of annual reports or 3-year impact reports, and are aimed at providing information and a positive framing to funders and other stakeholders. Other research has included some peer-reviewed quantitative studies (e.g., Bowen & Kisida, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref22">11</reflink>]; Bowen & Kisida, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref23">12</reflink>]), as well as case study reports of such efforts (Bodilly et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref24">9</reflink>]; Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref25">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>A few rigorous academic studies of arts partnerships have examined impacts on non-artistic outcomes. For example, Bowen and Kisida's ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref26">11</reflink>]) work in Houston is novel because it is one of the rare instances of a randomized control trial (RCT) involving arts education. Researchers assigned students by lottery to receive arts education experiences in conjunction with local arts organizations and teaching artists, and found that increases in arts experiences lowered disciplinary infractions, improved test scores, and improved school engagement, empathy, and college aspirations. In Bowen and Kisida's ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref27">12</reflink>]) study of the Boston Public Schools Arts Expansion, they also found positive correlations between arts education and a range of outcomes in Boston Public Schools. In a longitudinal study over an 11 year period, the researchers noted significant effects of arts course-taking on attendance but also on higher incidence of suspensions. There were no significant effects on test scores, and teachers reported higher levels of student and parent engagement when more students were enrolled in arts courses.</p> <p>Several smaller-scale, peer-reviewed qualitative analyses highlight the nuances of arts partnership efforts in metropolitan districts. Bernard ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref28">8</reflink>]) examined partnerships across New York City, and Conkling and Kaufman ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref29">17</reflink>]) outlined partnerships between private and public stakeholders in Baltimore and Boston. Similarly, Jones ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref30">31</reflink>]) reported on a music partnership program in a New England city, noting both successes and logistical challenges. These studies note some unevenness in implementation of the initiatives and serve to question some of the broad claims of success. For example, Bernard ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>]) found that few arts educators—including teaching artists from private arts partners—knew of or felt impact from recent arts education policy initiatives and implementation in New York. In Boston and Baltimore, Conkling and Kaufman ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref32">17</reflink>]) noted that though there had been increased access to arts instruction, quality of programming was mixed. They concluded that access did not guarantee a high-quality, sustained arts education. Shaw ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref33">55</reflink>]) examined arts education cuts in a smaller urban district (Lansing, Michigan) and the ways the district attempted to turn to community art providers to fill the void. However, the attempt at a partnership was marred by tensions and arguments as to the role the groups should play and whether they were supplanting sequential arts instruction. Supplanting full-time certified arts teachers with teaching artists (or contracted workers from an arts nonprofit) has been examined in New York City as well by Nicholson ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref34">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>One comparative study (Bodilly et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]) looked at metropolitan arts partnerships, and examined initiatives in six areas of the US—including Northern California, Los Angeles County, Dallas, Chicago, Boston, and New York City. The authors noted effective practices across partnerships, which included leadership to create and expand school-based arts education; partnerships with cultural institutions and community-based organizations to build capacity for classroom teachers, arts teachers, and teaching artists; policy creation to create more sequential arts education during the school day; arts education specialists at the district administration level; and the development of curriculum and arts assessment tools that aligned with state arts standards. This non-peer-reviewed study mirrors some previous work (see Rowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref36">45</reflink>]) in providing descriptions of some aspects of the programs, but does not use theory to examine the programs. It also precedes much of the partnership work that exists today in these cities.</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-4">Need for present study</hd> <p>Despite some research on metropolitan arts partnerships, there are numerous gaps in the literature. First, much of the literature on specific partnerships exists as internal reports prepared for participating school districts and partner organizations. This literature generally paints a picture of successful collaboration and concordance, but the field has little in the way of outside literature (i.e., robust peer-reviewed scholarship) that more critically examines such initiatives. Despite glowing accounts of most initiatives, there are perennial tensions around appropriate roles for school arts educators and community arts providers (Gee, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref37">23</reflink>]; Shaw, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref38">57</reflink>]). Some literature has suggested that some large urban school districts may attempt to maintain arts education programs with visiting artists or coordinate with outside agencies rather than employ certified arts educators as regular teaching staff (Nicholson, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref39">40</reflink>]). A closer look at public/private partnerships allows for scrutiny of the initiatives, including the goals and metrics, the expressed rationale, the partners involved, and their accomplishments. This points to the need to study the coalition members involved in these partnerships and the formulation of their agendas.</p> <p>Also, little existing scholarship compares multiple initiatives, and such an approach can aid with critical evaluation of the ways in which such partnerships are formed and framed. Framing is important in the policy formation literature, given the extensive literature on agenda setting (e.g., Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref40">47</reflink>]; Shipps, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref41">61</reflink>]; Stone, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref42">63</reflink>]). During agenda setting, policy actors purposefully frame or construct "images" (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]) to create momentum around a policy problem and to advance a preferred solution. Such framing is also an important aspect of sustaining support for a policy as conditions change and may also play a role in future policy efforts. This mimicry–or policy transfer/diffusion–means new policy initiatives borrow the framing of past policy successes (see Shaw, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref44">58</reflink>]). In this sense, uncovering the ways that metropolitan arts partnerships frame their work is important because it illuminates various aspects of how they function as policy.</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-5">Purpose and research questions</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to describe the policy formation of high profile metropolitan arts education partnerships. Research questions guiding this investigation were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do stakeholders involved in the formation of metropolitan arts partnerships interact and negotiate agendas?</item> <p></p> <item> How are the metropolitan arts partnerships framed?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the goals and metrics associated with the partnerships and how do they shape the partnership work?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186209105-6">Method</hd> <p>To investigate the research questions, we used a multiple case study approach (Stake, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref45">62</reflink>]). Stake ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref46">62</reflink>]) suggested that the strength of multiple case studies is in the ability to investigate the particularistic and the shared aspects of a phenomenon. Since we were interested in the understanding of policy formulation through shared governance in the third space (i.e., public/private) sector (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref47">30</reflink>]), this approach seemed optimal to investigating within-case and cross-case aspects of the partnerships in question. This multiple case study was policy focused, a common approach in illuminating how policy plays out in and across distinct settings (McLaughlin, 1987).</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-7">Sites of data collection and sources</hd> <p>Data collection occurred within five public/private metropolitan arts partnerships formed in large city school districts: Ingenuity (Chicago), EdVestors (Boston), Creative Advantage (Seattle), Arts Connect (Houston), and The Right Brain Initiative (Portland). We used criterion sampling to select sites that were (a) in large metropolitan areas, (b) at various stages of development, and (c) spread across the country. While there were numerous other possible sites that would have fit our criteria, selecting five gave us a manageable number while offering some diversity in location, organization, and approach. We contacted directors from the five partnerships (all were willing to participate) and then asked for recommendations for further interviewees, making attempts to gain multiple perspectives on the initiatives. For the sake of anonymity, we do not identify specific participants by name. However, all participants played central roles in the partnerships, either present at the inception of the partnership or currently active in the day-to-day workings. We attempt to identify these people by their general role when quoting them (e.g., "foundation executive").</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-8">Data collection and analysis</hd> <p>Interviews (Rubin & Rubin, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref48">46</reflink>]) and artifacts served as the primary sources of data collection for this multiple case study. We conducted between one and two semi-structured interviews with different key personnel in each partnership. Topics in the interview protocol included overall background of personnel role and partnership (public or private); descriptions of the genesis of the initiative, including who was involved, what benchmarks were created, and what roadblocks they encountered creating the partnerships; what metrics were important early on; how goals were selected; and how data were collected to demonstrate impact. Additionally, we asked participants to describe the ways in which the partnerships and initiative changed over time, including changes to the framing, metrics, and attention to more social and cultural changes.</p> <p>The artifacts we analyzed included all publicly available policy reports, brochures, news releases, webpages, and other documents available on the partnership websites. For example, Ingenuity produces annual reports spanning the years 2012-2021 and provides all reports on its website. Others (e.g., Houston) feature a variety of reports, advocacy materials, and informational brochures. We coded these artifacts for content related to research questions two and three, and they also helped to provide information related to partner involvement as it related to research question one. We kept descriptive notes (Emerson et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>]) as we conducted interviews and reviewed pertinent artifacts, which were later used to inform data analysis.</p> <p>With both interviews and artifact analysis, we followed a similar process. We separately coded interviews at one site each, then met to compare our first cycle coding. This coding was purposefully open, following what Saldana ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref50">48</reflink>]) calls an eclectic approach. After coming to a consensus on an approach, we then separately coded interview transcripts from the remaining sites. We followed a similar process to code artifacts, working independently and then meeting to discuss our codes. We met frequently to discuss within-case codes and categories as we went, pursuing a continuous, iterative process of analysis (Miles et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref51">39</reflink>]). We triangulated interview data with the large corpus of data from coded artifacts, helping to provide trustworthiness in documenting framing and goals in the partnerships. Following Stake ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref52">62</reflink>]), we first compiled individual case reports. Finally, we met to compare cases and create cross-case themes.</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-9">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186209105-10">Research question #1: partners and interactions</hd> <p>We identified several aspects related to research question one across the five cases. First, we identified who participated formally in the partnership (see Table 1 below). Second, interviews demonstrated that the partnerships were frequently connected to one another through an informal network, in addition to certain stakeholders or "players" (e.g., large, national arts organizations or charitable foundations) in the arts education world. We represent this web of ties in Figure 1 (a representative but not exhaustive diagram), which illustrates the types of connections present in this metropolitan arts partnership sphere. Finally, we present some cross-case themes gleaned from interviews about how the partners interacted around the formation and operation of the initiatives.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Web of actors and organizations.</p> <p>Table 1. Overview and description of partnerships.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Partnership/Age</td><td>Arts Connect (Houston) Formed 2018</td><td>Ingenuity (Chicago) Founded 2011</td><td>BPS Arts Expansion (Boston) Founded 2009</td><td>Creative Advantage (Seattle) Founded 2012</td><td>The Right Brain Initiative (Portland) Founded 2008</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Structure</td><td>Nonprofit housed within Arts Alliance</td><td>Standalone nonprofit</td><td>Program of nonprofit</td><td>Partnership (housed in mayor's office)</td><td>Program of nonprofit</td></tr><tr><td>Who is leading it?</td><td>Arts Alliance Houston</td><td>Ingenuity</td><td>EdVestors</td><td>Seattle Public Schools and Seattle Office of Arts and Culture</td><td>Arts for Learning Northwest</td></tr><tr><td>Who is involved?</td><td>Arts Alliance Houston; City of Houston government; Houston ISD; private funders; arts organizations</td><td>Ingenuity; Chicago Public Schools; private funders; arts organizations</td><td>EdVestors; Boston Public Schools; Boston city government; private funders; arts organizations</td><td>Seattle Office of Arts and Culture; Seattle Public Schools; The Seattle Foundation; arts organizations</td><td>Arts for Learning Northwest; Portland Tri-County region government; private funders; arts organizations; participating schools</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As shown in Table 1, there were similarities and differences in the partnership members and structure in each initiative. Ingenuity (Chicago), EdVestors (Boston), and Arts Connect (Houston) operate as standalone nonprofit organizations. They have a typical structure featuring a board, CEO, and staff. However, EdVestors is involved in a variety of non-arts youth development projects; the Boston Public Schools (BPS) Arts Expansion is led by specific staff members at EdVestors in conjunction with personnel from BPS. For Right Brain (Portland) and Creative Advantage (Seattle), the partnerships operate within existing organizations. In Seattle, the program is housed within the Mayor's Office in the Office of Arts and Culture.</p> <p>Participants noted that the distinction in organization was meaningful in terms of clarity around decision-making and day-to-day operations. Making a partnership a new program under an existing umbrella organization was simple, but could lead to the program being ignored among other organizational concerns, or could mean that ownership and coordination would be confusing. A director of Ingenuity mentioned the discussions about structure that emerged in early planning conversations. Originally, stakeholders in Chicago did not want to form a new nonprofit, but ultimately created one (Ingenuity). For these stakeholders, having an independent "backbone" organization supporting the aims and goals of arts access and education would support clarity around decision-making and day-to-day operations.</p> <p>In Seattle, Creative Advantage manifested as a new program within the Mayor's office without creating a new backbone organization. This may have been because of a lack of initial grant funding from large foundations (like the Wallace Foundation), which supported other metropolitan arts partnerships. The staff member from Creative Advantage explained:</p> <p>Our city was not given the implementation grant from the Wallace Foundation that other cities were. And I think, in many cases, [other cities] went on and formed whole organizations that hold this sort of role as the backbone convener or holder for Arts Education in their ecosystem. That didn't happen for us, and I'm not sure why. Maybe they thought, "Seattle has money, you guys got this, go for it." And we all were like, "Damn, well, okay, let's figure out a way."</p> <p>In the absence of a new nonprofit entity, the city's Office of Arts and Culture became the de facto leader of the initiative, working in tandem with the city's school district.</p> <p>Personnel from Right Brain (Portland) discussed the problems associated with being an initiative without a clear home. The initiative had started as a project of the Portland regional arts and culture council, but had personnel in another organization, Young Audiences of Oregon and Southwest Washington. Over time, the shared ownership and contracting of employees was confusing, as the Right Brain administrator noted:</p> <p>It was really confusing for everybody because people thought that Right Brain was a company or its own entity and it really was a program of a nonprofit. And so that created some confusion along the way even for employees—because we identified them as Right Brain employees, but there really was no Right Brain entity.</p> <p>Ultimately, the initiative moved completely to Young Audiences in January 2020, but this change meant that some people who had worked on the program lost their jobs and were embittered about the change.</p> <p>In addition to the core members, each partnership extended to a large collection of other organizations including funders (e.g., philanthropic organizations, corporations), art galleries, museums, and other cultural organizations. Within each metropolitan arts partnership, each project or program undertaken is typically labeled as a "partnership"; this could be a separate artist residency, or a field trip. The numbers for these programs varied: around 300 in Houston, to over 500 in Ingenuity (Chicago). In fact, this type of coordination of arts and cultural organizations was one of the primary tasks for each initiative. The coordination in Chicago led to the development of an interactive map tool, called Artlook®, which the Ingenuity staff member described as "an asset and resource for all the stakeholders in the sector. Whether you're a parent looking for a good arts rated school, an agency trying to find fits for your programs in schools or a school looking for an agency."</p> <p>Our analysis also uncovered a network of ties that demonstrated the interconnected nature of this arts partnership sphere. Figure 1 shows these ties in general form (i.e., not every foundation/corporation/consultant is listed), gleaned from interviews and documents. One can see the influence of certain groups, especially as it relates to funding and other support. Corporations and family foundations—especially the Wallace Foundation—are involved in many of the partnerships. Additionally, the Kennedy Center, itself a public-private organization, is (or was at one time) involved in all the partnerships we examined. Finally, participants consistently referenced Big Thought, an arts partnership in Dallas that laid the groundwork for the model used in subsequent initiatives. Some of the executives had moved between various partnerships over the years, with the space identified as "incestuous" by one participant. The staffer from Ingenuity discussed the network that had emerged between the metropolitan partnerships:</p> <p>We'd get together a couple of times a year at various conferences, and rent a hotel meeting room for a day to compare notes, [saying] "How are you doing this? How are you doing that? How are you doing at navigating your mayor? How are you navigating your board of education?"</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-11">Collective impact</hd> <p>Participants frequently talked about their mission in terms of coordination, convening, and collective impact. Participants defined collective impact as the synergistic coordination of a variety of partners in providing arts education within a single partnership. An executive from Ingenuity (Chicago) discussed why this mission was important:</p> <p>A lot of times, everybody knows exactly what should be done, but you can't just go do it. Because if you just go do it without getting the blessing and buy-in of all the stakeholders who have impact, it would collapse under its own weight. So that's what collective impact is all about, a coordination and alignment of multiple stakeholders towards a single goal.</p> <p>He emphasized that this collective impact work did not start with Ingenuity's first year of formal operation. Instead, the resulting partnership itself was the result of years of convenings: "the Wallace Foundation published a report around 2010 on the state of arts learning in major urban school systems across the U.S. When they got to Chicago, they did not have a lot of particularly good things to say."</p> <p>After the damning report, convenings started: "The funders organized this convening called the Chicago Arts Learning Initiative (CALI) with several hundred stakeholders in varying degrees of power, capacity, and scope—from school district representatives, funders, major museums and cultural institutions, school nonprofits, teaching artists and so on." This continued for several years due to, as a foundation executive explained, mistrust and lack of communication between Chicago Public Schools and other partners:</p> <p>The folks at the district would never have let [coordination] happen. They were too, 'No. We are over here. This is our people and this is only what we do.' Now, there's a 'bat phone' between Ingenuity and the director of arts learning at CPS.</p> <p>An administrator from Right Brain (Portland) talked about how convening for collecting impact necessitated convincing different stakeholders of the value of their investment, be it time or money. They noted: "Often what we can say to funders, including like the city and county folks, is how much their dollars are being matched." For Right Brain, the main costs were per-pupil costs covering arts integration instruction in schools, funded from a mix of philanthropic and municipal sources. The administrators continued:</p> <p>So for quite some time it was, I don't know, $40 or $45 per student. The school district was providing $15 of that. So for the school district, it seemed really cost effective, "Oh, our dollars are being matched three to one by partners who really care about this work."</p> <p>The family foundation executive involved with Ingenuity (Chicago) echoed this, noting that for foundations to pitch in, they have to trust the value of the partnership. They explained that numerous groups clamor for philanthropic funding, making choices dependent on perceived "return on investment":</p> <p>Most people are believers. I don't have to convince my board that the arts is a good thing and that kids should have access. The argument I need to have is that the grants that we're making are going to give the kids that they serve high-quality arts experiences.</p> <p>An executive from EdVestors (Boston) explained that collective impact work was further challenged by the structure of large urban school districts. In districts with a site-based management approach like Boston, principals had considerable autonomy to make various decisions around staffing and programming, which could include whether or not to hire arts teachers or to support arts integration professional development or partnership visits from community arts groups. Therefore, convening partners were required to establish shared priorities and to continually revisit them when a principal might leave or join a new school or shift their approach.</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-12">Role of philanthropy</hd> <p>Within the complex web of people involved—including government, school districts, family foundations, corporate/bank foundations—some stakeholders acted as lead conveners or directed negotiations. Participants noted that those who have the financial means—philanthropists—often sought influence over which actors came to meetings, made decisions, and ultimately, determined what type of approach the initiative may be. A philanthropic foundation executive in Chicago noted this was not without its awkwardness:</p> <p>At every step, somebody was mad ... Some of the debates were classic: "Where does power lie? Who has the power to make decisions?" Philanthropy often gets called out. We were called out a lot. One guy wanted to have coffee with me to yell at me about how we're being a king maker.</p> <p>A foundation executive associated with Ingenuity (Chicago) explained the challenge confronting philanthropic donors:</p> <p>Within philanthropy, when it gets tense, it's not about "Is the arts a good thing?" It's "We have a certain amount of money, we're in the middle of a global pandemic. Are we going to support, put all of our money, into our federally qualified health clinics who are on the front lines trying to get people vaccines or are we going to continue to support these arts organizations?"</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-13">Research question #2: framing</hd> <p>We noticed multiple framings used in the partnerships' descriptions and work. These framings were used concurrently and manifested in how participants talked about their programs, what information the partnerships chose to highlight in their organizational reports, and how they conceived of arts offerings and curriculum. Framings included looking at issues of access and equity, cultivating the whole child, and extra-artistic benefits.</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-14">Access and equity</hd> <p>The primary framing driving each partnership, as evidenced by organization reports and participant interviews, was student access to the arts. This framing came out primarily in interviews statements, as a Houston Arts Connect employee said their mission was to have "no more arts deserts." Framing around equity and access was a natural position to take, because the partnerships were formed in response to a lack of in-school arts education and previous federal education policy. The executive from Ingenuity (Chicago) explained:</p> <p>All these organizations exist because <emph>No Child Left Behind</emph> came along and hitched federal funding to test scores. And anything that wasn't tested was pushed out of the school day, including the arts. So organizations like ours crept out of the ground to get all that stuff put back in the school day.</p> <p>Each partnership collected information on how many students in districts/schools took in-school arts classes, the demographics of students who had access, and in which subjects courses were offered (music, visual art, dance, or drama). Collecting and reporting data on which students had access was seen as a first step, which then allowed each partnership to determine what constitutes "quality" and how to incrementally improve quality across schools and programming. A data manager at Arts Connect contextualized:</p> <p>Before I even think about if a district or school has a good art program I need to understand if they have one or don't. And, what do the kids look like that have them and what do the kids look like who don't.</p> <p>Framing around inequitable access to arts education, particularly for historically marginalized students, was evident in many of the materials we analyzed. Ingenuity's (Chicago) website included statistics to this end, such as: "35% of CPS students are still enrolled at schools without consistent access to high-quality arts education, and these students are disproportionately Black and low-income" (Ingenuity, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>]). This focus was echoed across the partnership reports and marketing materials. Arts Connect (Houston) touted a one-page brochure with:</p> <p>Arts education in Houston ISD is historically inequitable. As recently as last school year, nearly 20,000 of the district's highest need elementary schoolers received no arts opportunities in their schools despite state law defining the arts as a required core academic area (Arts Connect Houston, n.d.).</p> <p>Similarly, Creative Advantage reported that historically in Seattle there was "inconsistent access to arts education, especially for students qualifying for free and reduced lunch, students eligible for the transitional bilingual program, and students identifying as Black, Hispanic, or American Indian/Alaska Native" (Baker & Mehlberg, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref54">4</reflink>], p. 7).</p> <p>The framing around equity was also responsive to current events, not just historical gaps in programming. Amidst the backdrop of COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter Movement, Ingenuity (Chicago) created an access-based collective to address prevalent issues,</p> <p>to address the immediate challenges of COVID-19, the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Tony McDade, and shooting of Jacob Blake amplified disparities rooted in systemic racism that were already apparent through the pandemic. This cumulative national trauma and mobilization to protest injustice are interwoven with the arts sector's collective responsibility to critically examine the role we play in creating or maintaining systems that drive inequity." (Ingenuity, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref55">29</reflink>], p. 5)</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-15">Cultivating the whole child through extra-artistic benefits</hd> <p>In addition to framing around equitable access to arts education, the partnerships focused on messaging that related to the ways in which the arts help to enrich or cultivate the "whole child." Namely, they adopted framing that a "quality" arts education was part of a "complete" or "well-rounded" education. At times, this was tied to extra-musical outcomes of interest and supported with specific data collected around the partnerships. For example, Houston Arts Connect reported that, "Studies show that active participation in arts education can boost the development in artistic and social-emotional competencies including self-management, self-discipline, interpersonal skills, and self-expression, all critical tools for success in education and beyond" (Art Connect Houston, n.d.). In a 2018-2019 report, Ingenuity (Chicago) concluded that, "Exposure to the arts leads to higher student engagement and academic performance and decreases student drop-out rates and behavioral issues" (2019, p. 6).</p> <p>A data manager at Arts Connect (Houston) described that a framing focus on extra-artistic benefits is is a sort of "activism strategy," and furthered that "It's all about like SEL outcomes, about college career and college and career readiness; we really try to get those kinds of like, I like the term like 'hashtag words.'" Another participant said that if arts organizations do not focus on these types of "hashtag words" that they will not be successful: "it's kind of not cool right now to not be the one doing it. If you don't do it, how does that look?" Contrarily, Ingenuity (Chicago) said that their organization steered away from this type of rhetoric, citing the impossibility of convincingly suggesting arts access caused extra-artistic goals: "Could you really establish a clear causal link? No."</p> <p>Framing around whole-child benefits to arts education was frequently featured in reports and marketing materials in the form of qualitative storytelling and vignettes. Stories and testimonials included teacher commentaries such as, "Bringing the arts into my teaching has opened up fresh avenues of communication for my students" (The Right Brain Initiative, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref56">44</reflink>]). Similarly, Ingenuity featured a testimonial about a troubled student: "One such student began coming to school with renewed energy and focus, and was able to turn around failing grades in all of his classes ... he became a different student—teachers observed him laughing and engaged in ways previously unseen." In interviews, a Right Brain (Portland) employee discussed the perceived value of such stories: "Getting those real stories are super impactful when you talk about a kid who—the only time he used to show up to class is the days that the artist was there."</p> <p>Participants discussed how whole-child framing through stories was a necessity for gaining funding. An executive from Creative Advantage (Seattle) explained that,</p> <p>Depending on who I'm talking to [funders, educators, policymakers, district stakeholders], I emphasize different benefits: for some, arts education is justice work. For others, the arts aren't just discrete art skills, but 21st century skills. And also social emotional learning, cultural understanding, empowerment, confidence, all the things that human ones need to succeed in life, no matter what they become and what they are.</p> <p>This pointed, again, to how the need to secure money was a motivating factor in the policy framing that was chosen.</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-16">Research question #3: goals and metrics</hd> <p>As noted in research question two, the partnerships engaged in different types of policy framing to explain the value of their work. Additionally, the partnerships collected data on specific metrics, which were used to track progress in different areas. In our analysis, we noticed two main categories for these metrics: arts resources and access metrics, and non-arts-specific metrics. In some cases, these metrics matched with rhetorical framing. In other cases, the framing was broad but the metrics were more narrowly tailored.</p> <p>Examples of arts resources and access metrics included numbers of students who participated in arts education experiences, the number of arts teachers and their content areas (theatre, dance, visual art, music, etc.), and instructional minutes by week within arts content areas. Additionally, this category of metric included numbers of partnership experiences (e.g., visits from teaching artists, projects and field trips, etc.). For example, Creative Advantage (Seattle) collects school-level survey data for annual reports, and reports on increases over time in this manner: "SPS [Seattle Public Schools] has expanded from 35 elementary/K-5 schools receiving arts in 2013-14 to 68 in 2017-18, resulting in a 44-percentage point increase in elementary grade level arts access since the beginning of the initiative" (Baker, et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref57">5</reflink>]). Other partnerships (Ingenuity, Arts Connect) followed that same reporting process. Overall, Ingenuity (Chicago) had gone the furthest in collecting nuanced data on access and quality in arts education. In 2021, they started publishing a "roadmap" for every participating school that gave scores on access metrics (resources, participation, availability of arts education) and quality (use of standards, inclusion of the arts in school planning, budget allocation, availability of professional development, partnerships, engagement, and instructional approaches used).</p> <p>Some partnerships also collected data on non-arts-specific metrics, some of which were used in their framing. These non-arts specific markers included: test scores, attendance, parent engagement, culturally relevant pedagogy, and twenty first century skills. In some cases, this meant tracking test score data already collected by the school districts. Right Brain (Portland) in particular emphasized test score data to show how an infusion of the arts had benefited students.</p> <p>Arts Connect (Houston) took a similar approach, pursuing the connection between school arts experiences and a host of non-arts metrics like test scores, attendance, and disciplinary infractions in its marketing materials. Some partnerships had data on non-arts metrics, but chose not to publish it. A staff member from Ingenuity (Chicago) commented: "There's no way for us to say just because they had an arts class twice a week for four years, that's why they went to college. So we don't lead with it."</p> <p>In terms of gathering the needed data, outside research firms (e.g., the BERC Group, see Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref58">3</reflink>]) or academic researchers (e.g., Bowen & Kisida, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>] in Houston; Bowen & Kisida, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref60">12</reflink>] with EdVestors in Boston) were often employed to conduct interviews and observations, or to construct original questionnaires for students, parents, and staff. Such reports were published as a retrospective look at the first three years of partnership implementation, or as a yearly "State of the Arts" document featured on the partnership's website to demonstrate progress. However, participants noted that a significant challenge was moving beyond simply collecting and reporting data on given metrics. Improvement on metrics required thinking through ways to incentivize stakeholders to invest more funds and attention. For some, like Ingenuity (Chicago), this culminated in creating a tiered system of recognition tied to additional funding. Ingenuity established a "Creative Schools" distinction with levels of emerging, developing, strong, and the top category of excelling. This was done, an Ingenuity staffer noted, to create clarity for principals who wanted to achieve recognition, explaining:</p> <p>this is what <emph>great</emph> looks like, this is what <emph>good</emph> looks like, this is what <emph>okay</emph> looks like ... it allows us to cater technical assistance and support to those schools to meet them where they are and help them grow. It creates a blueprint or a road map for principal decision making. So hey, do you want to go up one recognition level? Make these three decisions. Do you want to go up another level? Make these four decisions. And so on.</p> <p>This staffer further described that the criteria for these distinctions could not be too daunting nor too easy to attain: "We knew that if you set the criteria too high, that school principals would just blanch at it—dismiss it and not look at it. But if you set it too low, it wouldn't encourage any growth."</p> <p>Some participants spoke of the cognitive dissonance they felt when trying to collect data on specific outcomes or metrics. For example, an executive from Creative Advantage (Seattle) said that outside funders liked clear metrics, but "tick the box" approaches missed qualitative aspects of what made an arts-rich classroom special:</p> <p>Interesting that the Wallace Foundation really wanted metrics that were clear, right? But others were like, "Well, I'll tell you this, when you go into a classroom, you can feel if it's high quality or not. You can have a rubric with 50 criteria on it, but that doesn't capture magic." Like you can say, "we use the finest quality materials in this lovely setting." And, you know, you can tick these things off before you ever enter the room. And then you enter a room. And either it's alive with learning or not.</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-17">Discussion</hd> <p>There are important limitations to our findings that should be kept in mind. First, the sample of partnerships here is small, so the findings may not be generalizable to all metropolitan areas. Second, participants relayed their perceptions related to the formation of the partnerships, and we compared these with websites and reports about the partnerships. However, it is possible that others who we did speak to would frame partnerships differently.</p> <p>Limitations aside, our investigation of structure uncovered several elements in the five partnerships we examined. First, all five partnerships represented successful joining of forces across public and private sectors. Moreover, the process of organizing these diverse coalitions followed a somewhat consistent "playbook." Here, convening stakeholders first involved conversations, agenda setting, and needs assessment—all pre-partnership work—followed by investment from philanthropy, industry, and government. This echoes some literature on the formation of metropolitan arts planning and partnerships (e.g., Bodilly et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref61">9</reflink>]). However, arts education policy scholarship on partnerships has not previously investigated specific nonprofit approaches related to "collective impact," a term and ethos discussed at length by participants in this study. This suggests the need for further exploration into how the third space sector of arts education policy may have adopted tenets of the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors.</p> <p>There were some key differences in whether partnerships were led by a specific "backbone organization" and whether this organization was created anew to run the partnership or whether the partnership or initiative around arts education was one program of many run by an existing stakeholder. These structural decisions seemed to have consequences for longevity or clarity of purpose, as reported by participants. This mirrored prior research from Shaw and Bernard ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref62">60</reflink>]) on the Turnaround Arts program. Run by the Kennedy Center, those responsible for implementing Turnaround Arts at the local level cited pros and cons of housing the program in a school district, a state department of education, or an arts nonprofit. In general, structuring partnerships as programs administered by a larger entity was most popular in the sites we studied. However, more longitudinal research would be needed to assess how structure interacts with longevity of the partnerships.</p> <p>Another main structural point to note is the outsized role that private money plays in facilitating the work of these metropolitan arts partnerships. Of course, this is a key feature to third space arts education policy: using private monies facilitates more expeditious program development than would likely be possible with only public funds. At times our participants discussed tensions associated with the influence of philanthropic direction. As much as all partnerships we studied featured meetings to get all stakeholders coordinated, it was acknowledged that philanthropic foundations could still easily drive the overall agenda at the outset. Pitching the worth of the partnerships to stakeholders also meant considering how to satisfy philanthropic interests as the initiatives continued. Lastly, when private funds were earmarked for schools that would improve the most in its arts education offerings, schools mostly made moves to secure the money.</p> <p>While this echoes some previous work on the role of philanthropic interests in education (Reckhow, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref63">41</reflink>]; Reckhow & Snyder, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref64">42</reflink>]), ours is one of the first studies to specifically recognize this in an arts education policy context. To be sure, there are some examples of public-only initiatives in arts education with significant impact. In 2022, California voters approved Proposition 28, which will set aside funds for school arts and music programs, for an estimated $1 billion increase (Mays, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref65">37</reflink>]). Yet, our study demonstrates the quickness and ubiquity of a third space approach. Third space approaches may be especially attractive in sites where governance is particularly contested. For example, the state of Texas took over control of Houston Independent School District in spring of 2023 (Lozano & Weber, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref66">34</reflink>]), but the public/private structure of Arts Connect was still able to operate.</p> <p>With regard to partnership framing, we noticed that each organization used a chameleon-like approach, where they could take a particular shape or form needed to serve a specific location or demographic population. As an Ingenuity representative described, the organizations needed to be able to "bend in the wind" like a palm tree. Sometimes the framing was focused on increasing participation for students of color in pursuit of access and equity, other times on leveraging the arts for social emotional learning. Still, at other times framing centered on increasing student attendance, participation, and engagement in school. The flexible nature of the framing is akin to some other arts programs (e.g., Kennedy Center's Turnaround Arts program) and their ability to implement a "flexible framework with an emphasis on local autonomy" where the focus can change and personalize based on school or district priorities (Shaw & Bernard, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref67">60</reflink>] p. 176). Overall, these partnerships achieve flexible framing through an inclusive, "grab bag" approach, emphasizing a menu of justifications for the importance of arts education.</p> <p>A grab bag framing approach might be viewed through Stone's ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref68">63</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref69">64</reflink>]) conception of policy framing, where different actors define the same policies in varied (and often contradictory) ways. Stone suggested that unfortunate situations become defined as problems as actors or interest groups frame them as being within control and changeable. Here, the metropolitan arts partnerships seem to be engaging in such framing, suggesting that issues of inequitable access, lack of "whole child education," and problems with engagement/attendance in school, can be addressed with arts education collaboration. In essence, the partnerships we studied engaged with ways to both initially define the problem and how they could help, and to experiment with framings that would continue to keep the partnerships at the forefront of relevance. As Stone ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref70">63</reflink>]) noted, such intentional imaging around policy agendas is necessary to assign responsibility and guide work. In sum, framing seems integral to how metropolitan arts partnerships justify their existence and define the scope of their work.</p> <p>Additionally, in each partnership we noticed a repeated combination of numbers with vignettes. Framing the importance of the partnerships meant relying on quantitative data paired with qualitative storytelling about how the arts positively changed an individual student, teacher, or community. Scholars have suggested that such stories can be analyzed for their content and how they use rhetoric to advocate for policy alternatives (Ganz, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref71">22</reflink>]; Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref72">36</reflink>]; Richerme, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref73">43</reflink>]). Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref74">36</reflink>]) suggested that policy stories have power because they set up familiar aspects of characters, tension, and resolution, and imply to the public that collective action (i.e., adopting a policy solution) could change the resolution of the story. Stories bring immediacy and intimacy to policy framing (Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref75">36</reflink>]). For these metropolitan arts partnerships, stories of specific kids and teachers rely on storytelling devices to bring such attributes to situations that may otherwise appear far away and removed.</p> <p>As noted in the findings, the approach to choosing metrics and collecting specific data on outcomes of interest was mixed. One might expect a focus on arts metrics given the common mission—providing access to arts education for students—across these five partnerships. At the same time, most studies of impacts of arts education have focused on non-arts outcomes, belying the secondary status of arts education programs, seen as "nice but not necessary" (Schultz, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref76">53</reflink>]). This is true of studies of sequential school-based arts education courses (Bowen & Kisida, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref77">10</reflink>]), arts integration initiatives (Burnaford et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref78">14</reflink>]; May & Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref79">35</reflink>]), and arts experiences like visits to museums (Greene et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref80">25</reflink>]; Kisida et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref81">32</reflink>]). The pluralistic "this and this" approach to metrics seems to echo prior scholarship suggesting that arts education advocates use a variety of arguments to justify their existence (Gee, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref82">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref83">24</reflink>]; Helton, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref84">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>The metropolitan partnerships mostly focused their arts-specific metrics on access, not on defining quality in arts education. Those that did go further—like Ingenuity (Chicago)—only did so after some years of focusing on equitable access. This may be a natural progression, but it also seems probably that defining quality is a more difficult task, which has been pointed out by those interested in partnerships for a long time (see Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref85">65</reflink>]). Defining and measuring "objective" markers like instructional minutes and number of partnerships is likely more straightforward than an exploration of aspects like the rigor of instruction. A pessimistic read of the situation might suggest that measuring some objective metrics surrounding access also helps to obscure some meaningful problems that persist. For example, Arts Connect (Houston) collects data on outside arts organizations partnering with Houston elementary schools, a metric which can be searched with the Artlook® tool. However, it is also true that none of these elementary schools are staffed with a certified arts educator.</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-18">Implications and recommendations</hd> <p>Given that most literature in the topic of arts partnerships are in the form of reports prepared by large organizations or consultants, more research is needed to put metropolitan arts partnerships into conversation with the broader positive youth development (PYD) literature (Barber et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref86">7</reflink>]; Burkhard et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref87">13</reflink>]) and research practice partnership (RPP) literature. In some sense, arts education occupies a unique space in this policy milieu, given the distinct process associated with developing a city's arts plan, for example. But more often than not, third space arts education policy follows the logics of afterschool programs, museum and field trips studies. Third space arts education policy borrows the animating principles and values of well-known RPPs like the Houston Education Research Consortium (HERC), in the sense that they are shaped around long-term efforts to solve enumerated policy problems, with clear theories of action and specified metrics. Currently, arts education policy studies frequently do not take stock of this literature and researchers may miss the ethos of this sector; it is only when researchers associated with RPPs (like Bowen and Kisida with HERC) study arts education that the two worlds overlap. However, researchers and policy makers should engage more thoughtfully with this literature. This would allow for better understanding of the logics and processes germane to this policy arena.</p> <p>Though this look at multiple initiatives uncovered the network of actors involved in the design of third space partnerships, more research is needed into how these groups interact and direct policy. Simply put, without the Kennedy Center and foundations (especially the Wallace Foundation), few of these partnerships would thrive. Scholars might engage with formal social network analysis (SNA) (see Daly, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref88">18</reflink>]) to uncover the nature of the ties between the relevant actors in this arts education policy sphere, referencing the work of Ball ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref89">6</reflink>]) and others (e.g. Scott & Jabbar, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref90">54</reflink>]) who use aspects of SNA to understand the strength and directionality of ties between groups and how this helps to predict and understand policymaking efforts.</p> <p>There are also implications for teachers and administrators, and for those who prepare arts educators. Given that the arts education partnership model is becoming increasingly common in large urban districts, it is beneficial to understand the stakeholders, framing, and metrics. Having a policy knowhow (Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref91">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref92">52</reflink>]) around these can aid administrators and arts teachers who might be asked to participate in these initiatives. Additionally, teacher education institutions may consider the inclusion of these policy efforts as topics in coursework so as to better prepare novice educators for jobs.</p> <p>Finally, arts education policy scholars should continue to critically examine these partnerships. More attention is needed into the experience of being a part of the partnerships and the "on the ground" experience in schools. Partnerships tout aggregate improvements in equitable access, but are these gains felt by students, teachers, and families? When initiatives move beyond access to considering quality, what does quality mean and who decides? Additionally, while the "grab-bag" approach to framing in some of these large-scale initiatives is undoubtedly attractive in appealing to different constituencies concerned with multiple outcomes, more attention is needed to see whether and how programming matches the rhetoric of framing. As partnerships describe their work in terms of social emotional learning, culturally relevant pedagogy, anti-racist teaching, and twenty first century skills, are these meaningfully present in their work? In sum, more research and policy attention is needed to explore the nuances of these metropolitan arts education partnerships as they continue to proliferate and expand.</p> <hd id="AN0186209105-19">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0186209105-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref3" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abramo, J. M., & Bernard, C. F. (2020). Barriers to access and university schools of music: A collective case study of urban high school students of color and their teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 226 (226), 7 – 26. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.226.0007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arts Connect Houston. (n.d). The problem. https://<ulink href="http://www.artsconnecthouston.org/%5ffiles/ugd/e8f3b1%5fd75a6b343b244b4084447c6854922de0.pdf">www.artsconnecthouston.org/%5ffiles/ugd/e8f3b1%5fd75a6b343b244b4084447c6854922de0.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref58" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, D. B., Gramata, C. A., Peterson, K. M., Ford, K., Jones, J., Chighizola, B., & Mehlberg, S. (2015). The creative advantage: Central arts pathway evaluation report year 2. The BERC Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref54" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, D. B., & Mehlberg, S. (2016). The creative advantage: Year 3 evaluation report. The BERC Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref57" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, D. B., Mehlberg, S., Chighizola, B., & Patel, R. (2019). The creative advantage year 5 evaluation report. The BERC Group. https://<ulink href="http://www.creativeadvantageseattle.org/go-deeper/">www.creativeadvantageseattle.org/go-deeper/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref86" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Barber, B. L., Abbott, B. D., Neira, C. J. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2014). Meaningful activity participation and positive youth development. In M. J. Furlong, R. Gilman, & E. S. Huebner (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 227 – 244). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref28" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bernard, C. F. (2020). Lived experiences: Arts policy at the street level in the New York City Department of Education. Arts Education Policy Review, 121 (1), 30 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2018.1530713</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bodilly, S. J., Augustine, C. H., & Zakaras, L. (2008). Revitalizing arts education through community-wide coordination. RAND Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowen, D. H., & Kisida, B. (2017). The art of partnerships: Community resources for arts education. Phi Delta Kappan, 98 (7), 8 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717702624</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowen, D. H., & Kisida, B. (2019). Investigating causal effects of arts education experiences: Experimental evidence from Houston's arts access initiative. Research Report for the Houston Independent School District. Volume 7, Issue 4. Houston Education Research Consortium.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowen, D. H., & Kisida, B. (2021). The arts advantage: Impacts of arts education on Boston students. EdVestors. https://<ulink href="http://www.EdVestors.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/">www.EdVestors.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/</ulink> The-Arts-Advantage-Impacts-of-Arts-Education-on-Boston- Students.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burkhard, B. M., Robinson, K. M., Murray, E. D., & Lerner, R. M. (2019). Positive youth development: Theory and perspective. In S. Hupp & J. Jewell (Eds.), The encyclopedia of child and adolescent development (pp. 1 – 12). Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burnaford, G. E., Aprill, A., & Weiss, C. (Eds.) (2013). Renaissance in the classroom: Arts integration and meaningful learning. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Catterall, J., & Waldorf, L. (1999). Chicago arts partnerships in education summary evaluation. In E. Fiske (Ed.), Champions of change: The impact of the arts on learning (pp. 47 – 62). The Arts Education Partnership and The President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2006). Troubling images of teaching in No Child Left Behind. Harvard Educational Review, 76 (4), 668 – 697. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.76.4.56v8881368215714</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conkling, S., & Kaufman, B. (2020). Equality and quality: The influence of private funds in public arts education in Boston and Baltimore. Arts Education Policy Review, 121 (1), 10 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2018.1530710</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daly, A. J. (2012). Data, dyads, and dynamics: Exploring data use and social networks in educational improvement. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 114 (11), 1 – 38. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811211401103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> EdVestors. (2016). Dancing to the top: How collective action revitalized arts education in Boston. https://<ulink href="http://www.EdVestors.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/BPS-Arts-Expansion-Case-Study.pdf">www.EdVestors.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/BPS-Arts-Expansion-Case-Study.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elpus, K., & Abril, C. R. (2019). Who enrolls in high school music? A national profile of US students, 2009–2013. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67 (3), 323 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429419862837</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganz, M. (2007). Telling your public story: Self, us now. https://philstesthomepage.files.wordpress. com/2014/05/public-story-worksheet07ganz.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gee, C. B. (1999). For your dear–anything! Remembering and returning to first principles–part 2. Arts Education Policy Review, 100 (5), 3 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632919909599471</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gee, C. B. (2002). The "use and abuse" of arts advocacy and consequences for music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 103 (4), 3 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632910209600294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greene, J. P., Kisida, B., & Bowen, D. H. (2014). The educational value of field trips: Taking students to an art museum improves critical thinking skills, and more. Education Next, 14 (1), 78 – 87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helton, B. C. (2021). The arts' legitimacy problem. Arts Education Policy Review, 122 (4), 224 – 238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2020.1731898</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingenuity. (2019). State of the arts in Chicago Public Schools: Progress report 2018–2019. <ulink href="http://www.ingenuity-inc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2018-19-State-of-the-Arts-Report.pdf">http://www.ingenuity-inc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2018-19-State-of-the-Arts-Report.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingenuity. (2020a). Ingenuity report finds increased access, participation in CPS arts education. https://<ulink href="http://www.ingenuity-inc.org/about/news-update/18-19-sota/">www.ingenuity-inc.org/about/news-update/18-19-sota/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingenuity. (2020b). ArtsEd response collective final report. https://<ulink href="http://www.ingenuity-inc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ARC-Final-Report-%5f-Aug-2020%5f.pdf">www.ingenuity-inc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ARC-Final-Report-%5f-Aug-2020%5f.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1993). The study of public policy processes. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, S. K. (2020). Making Music : A community–school music partnership. Arts Education Policy Review, 121 (2), 63 – 73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2019.1584136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kisida, B., Bowen, D. H., & Greene, J. P. (2016). Measuring critical thinking: Results from an art museum field trip experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9 (sup1), 171 – 187. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1086915</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leys, C. (2003). Market-driven politics: Neoliberal democracy and the public interest. Verso.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lozano, J. A., & Weber, P. J. (2023, March 16). Texas announces takeover of Houston schools, stirring anger. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/houston-schools-texas-takeover-eae680bec5fbd3b419c2583fb850d42e</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> May, B. N., & Robinson, N. R. (2016). Arts teachers' perceptions and attitudes on arts integration while participating in a statewide arts integration initiative. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25 (3), 12 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083714568567</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, F. W. (2014). Narrative politics: Stories and collective action. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mays, M. (2022, November 8). California voters approve Proposition 28 for music and arts education funding. Los Angeles Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-08/2022-california-election-prop-28-funding-music-art-school-results">www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-08/2022-california-election-prop-28-funding-music-art-school-results</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCarthy, K. F., Ondaatje, E. H., Zakaras, L., & Brooks, A. (2001). Gifts of the muse: Reframing the debate about the benefits of the arts. Rand Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicholson, G. (2020). (Open market + deregulation) ÷ competition = innovation + excellence: The experiences of music teachers in the age of neoliberal reform [Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University]. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 28022500)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reckhow, S. (2012). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reckhow, S., & Snyder, J. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43 (4), 186 – 195. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14536607</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richerme, L. K. (2019). Reimagining policy: Power, problems, and public stories. Arts Education Policy Review, 120 (2), 94 – 102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2017.1411300</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Right Brain Initiative. (2019). The Right Brain Initiative: 2018–2019 progress report. https://artsforlearningnw.org/rbi/resources/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe, M., Werber, L., Kaganoff, T., & Robyn, A. (2004). Arts education partnerships. RAND Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldana, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salvador, K., & Allegood, K. (2014). Access to music education with regard to race in two urban areas. Arts Education Policy Review, 115 (3), 82 – 92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2014.914389</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schedler, A. (Ed.). (1997). The end of politics? Explorations into modern antipolitics. St. Martin's Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, P. (2020a). Policy as practice: A guide for music educators. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, P. (2020b). Developing our policy know-how: Why policy should be part of music educator identity. Music Educators Journal, 107 (1), 24 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432120929072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schultz, J. R. (2006). Nice but not necessary? Educational leaders' stories of the arts in an era of accountability [Doctoral dissertation, Stephen F. Austin State University]. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3212929) <ulink href="http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/304906586/abstract?accountid=12598">http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/304906586/abstract?accountid=12598</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, J., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28 (2), 233 – 257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, R. D. (2018). The vulnerability of urban elementary school arts programs: A case study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65 (4), 393 – 415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429417739855</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, R. D. (2021). The influence of anti-politics on arts education policy. Arts Education Policy Review, 122 (4), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2020.1744054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, R. D. (2020). Finding footprints: Analyzing arts education policy implementation. Arts Education Policy Review, 121 (1), 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2018.1530711</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, R. D. (2023). Interrogating policy diffusion in the arts education sphere. Educational Policy, 37 (7), 2026 – 2050. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221131565</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, R. D., & Auletto, A. (2022). Is music education in tune with the pursuit of equity? An Examination of access to music education in Michigan's schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 69 (4), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429421989961</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, R. D., & Bernard, C. F. (2023). School culture change through the arts: A case study of the Turnaround Arts program. Arts Education Policy Review, 124 (3), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2021.2023059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shipps, D. (2011). The politics of educational reform: Idea champions and policy windows. In Mitchell D. E., Crowson R. L., Shipps D. (Eds.), Shaping education policy: Power and process (pp. 225 – 248). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104 (2), 281 – 300. https://doi.org/10.2307/2151585</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, D. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). W.W. Norton & Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, D. P. (2000). Beyond outsourcing: Creating corridors of arts opportunity. Arts Education Policy Review, 101 (3), 23 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632910009600251</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, T., & Antoni, G. (2012). More than the sum of its parts: Collaboration and sustainability in arts education. National Guild for Community Arts Education.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186209105-21"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> As we discuss later, the resulting policy effort is sometimes a named initiative ("Creative Advantage") or results in a new formation of an entity that manages the effort ("Ingenuity"). We discuss the variation later in the paper, but for the sake of simplicity, we use the terms "partnership" and "initiative" interchangeably.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ryan D. Shaw and Cara Faith Bernard</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref92"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1475524
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Appraising Metropolitan Arts Education Partnerships: A Policy Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ryan+D%2E+Shaw%22">Ryan D. Shaw</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0819-8480">0000-0003-0819-8480</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cara+Faith+Bernard%22">Cara Faith Bernard</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8899-0170">0000-0002-8899-0170</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Arts+Education+Policy+Review%22"><i>Arts Education Policy Review</i></searchLink>. 2025 126(3):147-160.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Art+Education%22">Art Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Partnerships+in+Education%22">Partnerships in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Metropolitan+Areas%22">Metropolitan Areas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stakeholders%22">Stakeholders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Objectives%22">Educational Objectives</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcome+Measures%22">Outcome Measures</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Illinois+%28Chicago%29%22">Illinois (Chicago)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Massachusetts+%28Boston%29%22">Massachusetts (Boston)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Washington+%28Seattle%29%22">Washington (Seattle)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Texas+%28Houston%29%22">Texas (Houston)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Oregon+%28Portland%29%22">Oregon (Portland)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10632913.2023.2277941
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1063-2913<br />1940-4395
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Over the past 20 years, some of the most notable arts education policy initiatives have taken place in urban areas with the creation of metropolitan arts education partnerships. Aside from a few impact studies and isolated reports, little research exists that specifically analyzes their policy implications. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the formation of high-profile metropolitan arts education partnerships. Research questions were: 1) What stakeholders are involved and how do they interact? 2) How are the metropolitan arts partnerships framed?, and 3) What are the goals and metrics associated with the partnerships? Using a policy-focused multiple case study approach, data collection included document analysis and interviews with key stakeholders from five partnerships. There were a variety of structures behind the partnerships, and stakeholders described interactions in terms of collective impact and negotiations over agendas. Partnerships were framed around equitable access to arts education alongside more sentimentalized rhetoric about the power of the arts. Finally, partnerships collected data on both arts-specific and non-arts-specific metrics to track progress.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1475524
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1475524
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10632913.2023.2277941
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 147
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Art Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Partnerships in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Metropolitan Areas
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stakeholders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Objectives
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outcome Measures
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Illinois (Chicago)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Massachusetts (Boston)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Washington (Seattle)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Texas (Houston)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Oregon (Portland)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Appraising Metropolitan Arts Education Partnerships: A Policy Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ryan D. Shaw
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cara Faith Bernard
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1063-2913
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1940-4395
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 126
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Arts Education Policy Review
              Type: main
ResultId 1