Buyer beware: this is not a brief blog…

Last Tuesday, the New York City Department of Education released its second Annual Arts in the Schools Report, which is part of a larger initiative called Arts Count.

There were three press articles that covered this report:

NY Times

NY Post

Inside Schools

Here is the press release issued by the NYCDOE

Okay, what are the key points that made it to the press release?

“Among
the main findings:

·       
Forty-five
percent of elementary schools offered all four art disciplines in 2007-2008, up
from 38 percent in 2006-2007. 

o      
92
percent of elementary schools offered visual arts

o      
89
percent of elementary schools offered music

o      
percent
of elementary schools offered dance

o      
56
percent of elementary schools offered theater

·       
Thirty-three
percent of middle schools offered all four art disciplines, up from 17 percent
in 2006-2007; and student participation increased in all four disciplines.

o      
91
percent participated in visual arts programs, up from 84 percent

o      
75
percent participated in music programs, up from 69 percent

o      
57
percent participated in dance programs, up from 36 percent

o      
56
percent participated in theater programs, up from 49 percent

·       
A
greater percentage of high school students are participating in arts
instruction by discipline.

o      
In
the 9^th grade, student participation in dance, theater, and visual
arts increased by more than ten percentage points in each discipline.

o      
In
the 10^th grade, student participation in dance, music, theater, and
visual arts increased by more than six percentage points in each discipline.

o      
In
the 11^th grade, student participation in dance, music, and theater increased
by more than five percentage points in each discipline.

o      
In
the 12^th grade, student participation in dance and theater increased
by at least ten percentage points.

The
report also shows that despite budget constraints, school leaders reported
hiring an additional 152 certified arts teachers. Spending levels remained
essentially unchanged.

Last
year, the Department of Education used several approaches to enhance access and
participation rates. These included:

·       
Establishing
the Arts Education Liaison position in more than 1,200 schools. The Arts
Education Liaison assists the principal in planning arts instruction, choosing
cultural partners, and completing the Annual Arts Survey; 

·       
Building
awareness of the requirements for arts education, resulting in a higher survey
response rate. The 2007-2008 response rate was 91 percent, representing 1,307
schools, compared to 75 percent, representing 939 schools, in 2006-2007;

·       
Offering
technical assistance and support to every school. More than 800 schools
accepted and received help in implementing arts programming;

·       
Identifying
schools in need of improvement in arts education programs and providing
specific support services such as visits to best practice sites, seminars on
budgeting and scheduling, and an introduction to the Blueprints for Teaching
and Learning in the Arts–a research-based approach to teaching arts
implemented under Children First.”

Okay, what didn’t make it to the press release and what warrants further examination in the report?

The number of schools without any arts teachers jumped from approximately 20% to almost 30%. (There are almost 1500 schools in the system–you can do the math.)

Spending on arts supplies went down by 63% (a reduction in almost $7 million). That’s a whole lot of supplies.

Spending on services of cultural organizations went down by over $500,000. If you factor in that cultural organizations match the contributions of schools by two dollars for every one dollar a school spends, you’re looking at total reduction in $1.5 million related to services provided by outside organizations. This is particularly important when you consider the dearth of certified arts teachers.

The number of arts teachers at the middle school level declined, as well as overall spending at the middle schools. But, somehow the number of students provided with the minimum state requirements in arts education jumped from 29% in last year’s report to 46% in the new report. While it is not impossible for this to have occurred, it’s a bit of a head scratcher.

Even after what many believe to be the largest budget increase in the history of New York City public schools, from approximately $12 billion in 2003 to almost $20 billion at present, you have only 8% of all elementary schools even in the position to provide the minimum State requirements, by offering all four art forms in all grades. Granted, last year only 4% met this criterion. Yes, you have a 100% increase. And at that rate, it will take how many years to meet the requirements for all students? The answer is four years. But not so fast. We’re talking about offering what amounts to the minimum requirements, not rates of participation. Nevertheless, if this rate of increase could be sustained, that would be a very important win for the children. Wouldn’t it be grand if the City of New York pledged to maintain that rate of growth, for even if it doesn’t give us 100% participation, it would be a foundational growth in capacity.

The press release indicates that 152 new certified arts teachers were added. Sounds great? Only it’s not the whole story, as a review of data in the report indicates an increase of 61 teachers. How is that possible? Well, we surmise they don’t factor in the number of positions lost to attrition. In all fairness, that is still 61 new teachers. That being said, these positions were added during the historic budget expansion period. This is also an example of how the data can be misleading. Sixty-one teachers were added while there was a 10% increase in the number of schools without certified arts teachers. Our interpretation is that some arts friendly principals used their increased budgets to hire more arts teachers, while many principals that had one certified arts teacher on staff cut back to zero.

The report indicates that “per capita” spending rose from $308 to $311 per student. (Actually, last year’s report states the spending was at $312). Again, it sounds great, doesn’t it? Where else in the country are they spending $311 per student? If you consider that there are hundreds of schools without a certified arts teacher, how could the per capita spending be $311? Certainly, if you add up all spending attributable to arts education, and divide it by the number of students, you can calculate such a per capita figure. But this doesn’t really tell us much of the story, as to who is provided with what. What is the per capita spending in a school where the kids haven’t a single certified arts teacher and spending on cultural providers is being cut, versus spending at the Frank Sinatra School of the Arts High School? This is an area that needs much greater attention.

The section on response rates of schools is another head scratcher. Last year’s report stated that only 1078 schools were included in the report, even though the initial response rate was over 1200 schools. This year’s reports state that last year’s response rate was only 939 schools. If last year’s report factored data from 1078 schools, how could it only have 939 responses?

It’s also interesting that both this year and last year’s report give the impression that all high school students receive the arts education required by the State of New York. This is because one cannot graduate without one year of arts education. That is, roughly speaking, the minimum requirement. However, if you consider graduation rates, as well as alternative pathways to high school diplomas, well, many high school students are not being provided with arts education. It is another area, a significant one, warranting a different methodology.

This is a particularly important area of concern. Upon analysis of last year’s report, we determined a clear statistical correlation between those who study the arts, and attendance and graduation rates. In a system struggling to raise graduation rates, it would appear that participation in high quality arts for all high school students on a regular basis would be an important approach to raising the graduation rates.

The report is hobbled by much of what ails many of the similar reports being released elsewhere: it is heavily weighted towards explicating what is “offered,” without going the next very hard mile to determine real rates of participation. As long as these reports tell us, in the main, what is “offered” but do not apply more sophisticated and costly methodologies to uncover participation to a much greater degree, a veil will remain over the data and its utility.

Finally, for a report of this importance, most of the researchers I have spoken with have stated that there should be some independent verification of the data provided by the principals. Almost everything is self-reported, with internal verification by the NYCDOE data. Perhaps a sample of schools might have been selected for site visits and detailed auditing of data for verification purposes?
 
Everyone I know feels that the NYCDOE Office of Arts and Special Projects, led by Interim Acting Executive Director Paul King, is doing the very best job possible under policies they do not control. I certainly feel that way.

You must remember that this report, for all intents and purposes, reflects another time and place, before Wall Street and Main Street started tumbling. What will safeguard the arts in New York City schools, especially when the grade scores given each school, to which principal accountability is based, do not reflect the arts in any real, meaningful, and practical way. When budgets start to tumble, and with the rubber meeting a road paved with ELA and math scores, what will happen to the arts?

All in all, I would have to say this the report has a through the looking glass quality that doesn’t provide the real tools we need, namely a detailed understand of what each child receives and what it will take to get us to a well-rounded education that includes the arts for every child, while meeting the minimum  requirements required by the State of New York.

Thanks to my colleagues Doug Israel and Kira Raffel at The Center for Arts Education with assistance in putting what should have been a multi-part blog into one post.

Okay, for those who had the patience to read through the entire post, here’s a pop quiz: What do you call a watch dog that doesn’t bark or bite? Email me with your answer and don’t forget your number two pencil.