Reinvesting

in Arts Education Winning America’s Future Through Creative Schools

President’s Committee on the Arts And the humAnities
Created in 1982 under President Reagan, the President’s 

Committee on the Arts and the Humanities (PCAH) is 

an advisory committee to the White House on cultural issues. 

The PCAH works directly with the Administration and the 

three primary cultural agencies –– National Endowment for 

the Arts (NEA), National Endowment for the Humanities 

(NEH) and the Institute of Museum and Library Services 

(IMLS) –– as well as other federal partners and the private 

sector, to address policy questions in the arts and humanities, 

to initiate and support key programs in those disciplines 

and to recognize excellence in the field. Its core areas of 

focus are arts and humanities education, cultural exchange, 

and community revitalization. The First Lady serves as the 

Honorary Chairman of the Committee, which is composed of 

both private and public members.

Through the efforts of its federal and private members, the 

PCAH has compiled an impressive legacy over its almost 

30-year tenure, conducting major research and policy 

analysis, and catalyzing important federal cultural programs, 

both domestic and international. These achievements rely 

on the PCAH’s unique role in bringing together the White 

House, federal agencies, civic organizations, corporations, 

foundations and individuals to strengthen the United States’ 

national investment in its cultural life. Central to the PCAH’s 

mission is using the power of the arts and humanities to 

contribute to the vibrancy of our society, the education of our 

children, the creativity of our citizens and the strength of 

our democracy.

Michelle Obama, Honorary Chair

Co-Chair

George Stevens, Jr.

Co-Chair 

Margo Lion

Vice Chair

Dr. Mary Schmidt Campbell

executive director

Rachel Goslins 
With major support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

Additional support provided by: 

Members of the President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities; and 

the Stephen and Myrna Greenberg Philanthropic Fund of the Jewish Communal Fund

Reinvesting in Arts Education Winning America’s Future Through Creative Schools

President’s Committee on the Arts and THE Humanities
May 2011

President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities

1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 526

Washington, DC 20506

Telephone: 202-682-5409

Prepared by M. Christine Dwyer, RMC Research Corporation, 

Portsmouth, NH

Produced by the President’s Committee on the Arts 

and the Humanities

Designed by Fletcher Design, Inc./ Washington, DC

Front Cover Photo: Michele Kraus

Printed in the United States of America

This publication is available free of charge at www.pcah.gov, the 

website of the President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.

Individuals are encouraged to cite this report and its contents. In 

doing so, please include the following attribution:

President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, Reinvesting 

in Arts Education: Winning America’s Future Through Creative 

Schools, Washington, DC, May 2011
Table of Contents

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................v

Foreword by Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education.............................................1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7

The Case: Arts Education Outcomes ...............................................................................15

The Need: Education System in Crisis............................................................................27

The Opportunity: Point of Inflection ...............................................................................37

Conclusion and Recommendations: A Vision of Arts-Rich Schools..................47

Appendices...................................................................................................................................57

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................74

Members of the President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities........76

 Reinvesting in Arts Education v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In October of 2008, then-Senator Obama released a powerful Platform in Support of the Arts. In it he argued for reinvesting in American arts 

education, and reinvigorating the creativity and innovation that has made this 

country great. Taking up this charge, over the past eighteen months the President’s Committee on Arts and the Humanities (PCAH) has conducted an in-depth review 

of the current condition of arts education, surveying recent research about its documented 

benefits and identifying potential opportunities for advancing arts education. While we 

found a growing body of research to support positive educational outcomes associated with 

arts-rich schools, and many schools and programs engaged in such work, we also found 

enormous variety in the delivery of arts education, resulting in a complex patchwork with 

pockets of visionary activity flourishing in some locations and inequities in access to arts 

education increasing in others.

At this moment in our nation’s history, there is great urgency around major transformation in America’s schools. Persistently high dropout rates (reaching 50% or more in 

some areas) are evidence that many schools are no longer able to engage and motivate their 

students. Students who do graduate from high school are increasingly the products of narrowed curricula, lacking the creative and critical thinking skills needed for success in post-
vi Reinvesting in Arts Education

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

secondary education and the workforce. In such a climate, the outcomes associated with 

arts education –– which include increased academic achievement, school engagement, and 

creative thinking –– have become increasingly important. Decades of research show strong 

and consistent links between high-quality arts education and a wide range of impressive 

educational outcomes. This is true even though, as in most areas where learning is complex, 

the research base does not yet establish causal proof. Arts integration models, the practice 

of teaching across classroom subjects in tandem with the arts, have been yielding some particularly promising results in school reform and closing the achievement gap. Most recently, cutting-edge studies in neuroscience have been further developing our understanding of 

how arts strategies support crucial brain development in learning. 

At the same time, due to budget constraints and emphasis on the subjects of high 

stakes testing, arts instruction in schools is on a downward trend. Just when they need it 

most, the classroom tasks and tools that could best reach and inspire these students –– art, 

music, movement and performing –– are less available to them. Sadly, this is especially true 

for students from lower-income schools, where analyses show that access to the arts in 

schools is disproportionately absent.

One promising development is that, nationally, arts education is finding new allies. 

Policymakers and civic and business leaders, as reflected in several recent high level task 

force reports, are increasingly recognizing the potential role of the arts in spurring innovation, providing teachers with more effective classroom strategies, engaging students in 

learning, and creating a climate of high performance in schools. Another development is 

the enthusiasm among educators and members of the arts community for expanding arts 

integration and the use of well-trained teaching artists in schools. Arts integration has been 

used in a number of very successful long term programs to expand arts opportunities, engage students more deeply in learning content, and as an effective school reform strategy. 

Teaching artists also represent an underutilized resource pool, many of whom are both eager and well qualified to serve in long- term assignments in schools.

 The PCAH recognized at the outset of this research that many diverse stakeholders 

have an interest in arts education. Any significant advancement in the field will require unprecedented unity of purpose and the coordinated actions of local, state, and federal government agencies, educators and professional associations, and the arts community. The 
 Reinvesting in Arts Education vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

common purpose is expansion of access to arts education so that more students in American schools, especially those in underserved schools, have the benefits of a comprehensive 

education. Based on what we learned over the past year about needs and opportunities, the 

PCAH is making five recommendations for actions to be undertaken by different stakeholders to advance arts education. Those actions are designed to clarify the position of the arts 

in a comprehensive, well-rounded K-12 education that is appropriate for all students; unify 

and focus efforts to expand arts education offerings to underserved students and communities; and strengthen the evidence base for high quality arts education. 

1. Build collaborations among different approaches. The PCAH urges leaders of 

professional associations to work with federal and state agencies to build and demonstrate connections among different educators in the arts: art specialists working on standards-based approaches; classroom teachers trained in arts integration; 

and project-based teaching artists. The PCAH believes that collaborations among 

national leadership organizations should move beyond internal debates in the arts 

education field about modes of delivery of arts instruction in order to address the 

more pressing issues of equitable access and infusing more schools with a 

creativity-rich environment. 

2. Develop the field of arts integration. The second recommendation focuses on an 

expansion of arts integration. The PCAH encourages further development of the field 

of arts integration through strengthening teacher preparation and professional development, targeting available arts funding, and setting up mechanisms for sharing ideas 

about arts integration through communities of practice. In this recommendation 

we identify roles for regional and state arts and education agencies as well as private 

funders.

3. Expand in-school opportunities for teaching artists. We strongly believe that 

working artists in this country represent an underutilized and underdeveloped resource in increasing the quality and vitality of arts education in our public schools. 

The PCAH recommends expanding the role of teaching artists, in partnership with 

arts specialists and classroom teachers, through sustained engagements in schools. 

This should include supporting high quality professional development in pedagogy 
viii Reinvesting in Arts Education

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

and curriculum. We see an opportunity for leadership in this from the regional and 

state arts agencies, as well as a national service program similar to the “Artists Corps” 

idea articulated in President Obama’s Arts Policy Campaign platform.

4. Utilize federal and state policies to reinforce the place of arts in K-12 education. 

This recommendation focuses on the need for federal and state education leaders to 

provide policy guidance for employing the arts to increase the rigor of curriculum, 

strengthen teacher quality, and improve low-performing schools. Building capacity 

to create and innovate in our students is central to guaranteeing the nation’s competitiveness. To do this it is necessary for federal and state governments to move beyond 

merely “allowing” the arts as an expenditure of a comprehensive education.

5. Widen the focus of evidence gathering about arts education. Finally, while the 

evidence base for the benefits of the arts is compelling, there is room to expand systematic data gathering about the arts, specifically in developing creativity and enhancing engagement in school. Educators need practical tools to measure the progress of 

student learning in the arts — an investment that dovetails with the federal education 

agency’s investments in more authentic assessments of complex learning. From a federal perspective, policymakers should help stakeholders make informed arguments 

and decisions regarding impact and equitable access. This requires policies that support ongoing data gathering about available opportunities, including teacher quality, 

resources, and facilities at the local and state level. 

The PCAH envisions schools in cities and towns across our nation that are alive with the 

energy of creative thinking and fresh ideas, full of art, music and movement. All of our research points to the success of schools that are “arts-rich,” in which students who may have 

fallen by the wayside find themselves re-engaged in learning when their enthusiasm for 

film, design, theater or even hip-hop is tapped into by their teachers. More advanced students also reap rewards in this environment, demonstrating accelerated learning and sustained levels of motivation. 

PCAH stands ready to partner with public agencies and the private sector to further 

develop and implement these recommendations.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 1

FOREWORD

Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education 

Education in the arts is more important than ever. In 

the global economy, creativity is essential. Today’s workers need more than just skills and knowedge to be productive and 

innovative participants in the workforce. Just look at the inventors of the iPhone and the developers of Google: they are innovative as well as intelligent. 

Through their combination of knowledge and creativity, they have transformed the way we 

communicate, socialize, and do business. Creative experiences are part of the daily work life 

of engineers, business managers, and hundreds of other professionals. To succeed today and 

in the future, America’s children will need to be inventive, resourceful, and imaginative. The 

best way to foster that creativity is through arts education.

Reinvesting in Arts Education makes a compelling case for arts education and the essential role it will play in preparing students for success in the knowledge and innovation 

economy. This report shows us the link between arts education and achievement in other 

subjects. It documents that the process of making art –– whether is it written, performed, 

sculpted, photographed, filmed, danced, or painted –– prepares children for success in the 

workforce not simply as artists, but all professions. Most importantly, it makes a compelling 
2 Reinvesting in Arts Education

FOREWORD

argument for creating arts-rich schools and engaging artists in ways that complement the 

study of other subjects such as literature, history, science, and mathematics. 

I believe that all students should have the opportunity to experience the arts in deep 

and meaningful ways. The opportunity to learn about the arts and to perform as artists is an 

essential part of a well-rounded curriculum and complete education. The study of drama, 

dance, music, and the visual arts helps students explore realities, relationships, and ideas 

that cannot be conveyed simply in words or numbers. The ability to perform and create in 

the fine arts engenders innovative problem-solving skills that students can apply to other 

academic disciplines and provides experiences working as a team. Equally important, arts 

instruction supports success in other subjects. Visual arts instruction improves reading 

readiness, and learning to play a musical instrument or to master musical notation helps 

students to succeed in math. Reading, math, and writing require students to understand 

and use symbols –– and so does assembling shapes and colors in a portrait or using musical notes to learn fractions. Experiences in the arts are valuable on their own, but they also 

enliven learning of other subjects, making them indispensable for a complete education in 

the 21st Century. 

As a parent, I have witnessed the ability of one arts educator to enrich the learning of 

my daughter and son, who attend a public elementary school that weaves science throughout the curriculum. The school’s music teacher writes and teaches songs to the kids about 

science. In his music room, children sing about gravity, sedimentation, rocks, and the planets. Students sing, clap, and dance about solids, liquids, and gases. On holidays celebrating 

American heroes, Mr. Puzzo writes songs for the students about them. Years later, when 

students sit down to take their SATs, they report humming Mr. Puzzo’s songs to recall historical and scientific content. These musical experiences provide more than a memorization tool to master facts. They provide opportunities to experience learning in creative 

ways. They engage students in musical experiences that introduce them to the power and 

beauty of the creative process for its own enjoyment and enrichment. 

I’ve also seen the power of arts education as an education leader. When I was the 

CEO of Chicago Public Schools, I became convinced that arts education is an integral part 

of school reform. Working with the Chicago Arts Partnership in Education (CAPE), we 

brought local artists and teachers into the schools to integrate arts curriculum with other 
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 3

FOREWORD

academic subjects. Studies showed that students at the CAPE schools performed better on 

standardized assessments than students who attended schools that did not integrate arts 

and sciences. Perhaps as important, researchers found that schools working with CAPE’s 

artists made positive changes in the school’s culture, creating environments where students thrive academically, socially, and artistically. 

It’s an unfortunate truth that many schools today are falling far short of providing students with a full experience of the arts that helps them engage and succeed in other academic areas and build skills that would serve them well in the innovation economy. Too often, 

students are saddled with boring textbooks, dummied-down to the lowest common denominator. Today’s curriculum fails to spark student curiosity or stimulate a love of learning. As 

this report documents, the arts significantly boost student achievement, reduce discipline 

problems and increase the odds that students will go on to graduate from college. It demonstrates that arts education can play an important role in narrowing the achievement gap 

between minorities and whites. And it offers examples of arts-rich schools where teachers 

and visiting artists use the magic of the arts to illuminate literature, social studies, math, 

science, and other subjects.

President Obama has made a convincing case that innovation and education are going to help America win the future. He firmly believes that arts education builds innovative 

thinkers who will become our nation’s leaders in government, business, and the nonprofit 

sectors. For today’s students to be the innovators and economic leaders of the future, they 

will need to have experiences as musicians and dancers, painters and sculptors, poets and 

playwrights –– in short, they will need to be creative innovators who will build our nation’s 

economy for the future. They also will sustain a rich and vibrant culture to nourish the heart 

and soul of the American people, and to communicate with our neighbors around the globe. 

In Reinvesting in Arts Education, the President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities explains why American schools are falling short in providing students the opportunity for a well-rounded curriculum and a rich arts education that will prepare them for 

success in the future. I encourage educators, school board members, business, and philanthropic leaders and artists to read this report and to see it as a call to action. 
INTRODUCTION

4 Reinvesting in Arts Education

“When young people 

are involved with 

the arts, something 

changes in their lives.”

— Champions of Change: The Impact of the Arts on Learning, 1999, 

Arts Education Partnership and the President’s Committee on 

the Arts and the Humanities 

Photo by Alexa Rubinstein
INTRODUCTION

 Reinvesting in Arts Education 5
INTRODUCTION

6 Reinvesting in Arts Education
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 7

INTRODUCTION

The President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities 

(PCAH), founded in 1982 by Executive Order, advises the White 

House on cultural policy and collaborates with the three primary 

cultural agencies, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the 

National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the Institute for Museum and Library 

Services (IMLS). PCAH also works with other federal agencies and the private sector to 

initiate and support projects in the arts and humanities. The First Lady serves as Honorary 

Chair of the Committee, which is composed of both private and public members. Private 

members appointed by the President include prominent artists, philanthropists, entrepreneurs, and state public officials who have a demonstrated commitment to the arts and humanities. Its federal public members include the Chairman of NEA, the Chairman of NEH, 

the Director of the IMLS, the Librarian of Congress, the Secretaries of the U.S. Departments 

of Interior, State, and Education, and the heads of other federal cultural institutions, such 

as the National Gallery of Art, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and the 

Smithsonian Institution.

PCAH has compiled an impressive legacy over its lifespan, from major policy reports 

and convenings in the field to initiating or creating successful federal programs, such as Save 
8 Reinvesting in Arts Education

INTRODUCTION

America’s Treasures, The National Arts and Humanities Youth Program Awards (formerly 

Coming Up Taller) and Film Forward. Each of these initiatives is a partnership involving two 

or more federal agencies and both public and private support. The effectiveness of the President’s Committee is due to its unique position as a nexus of federal cultural agencies, the arts 

and humanities communities, and the private sector. The leadership of successive First Ladies has been instrumental in focusing the nation’s attention on critical cultural issues.

The PCAH believes that the arts and humanities are essential to our public school 

curriculum, both in and of themselves and as a way to engage students more fully in their 

education. PCAH has joined with diverse partners in arts and education to research these 

areas.1

 Under the current Administration, the Committee continues to support arts and humanities education, both during the school day and in after-school and out-of-school time, 

as a means to connect with at-risk students, create a culture of excellence and collaboration, 

and encourage creativity and innovative thinking in young minds. It is with this approach 

that the present members of the President’s Committee addressed the issues in this Report.

The President’s Charge 

President Barack Obama created an Arts Policy Council during his 2008 campaign made 

up of artists, cultural leaders, educators and advocates, to advise on policy matters related 

to the arts. The group was co-chaired by George Stevens, Jr. and Margo Lion, current CoChairs of the President’s Committee and included many present members of the Committee. The Platform in Support of the Arts stated: 

Reinvest in Arts Education: To remain competitive in the global economy, 

America needs to reinvigorate the kind of creativity and innovation that has made 

this country great. To do so, we must nourish our children’s creative skills. In addition to giving our children the science and math skills they need to compete in 

the new global context, we should also encourage the ability to think creatively 

that comes from a meaningful arts education. Unfortunately, many school districts are cutting instructional time for art and music education. 

1

 For example, in 1999, the Department of Education provided publication support for two PCAH/Arts Education Partnership research reports: Gaining the Arts Advantage: Lessons from School Districts that Value Arts Education and 

Champions of Change: The Impact of the Arts on Learning. These reports confirmed the value of arts in education, especially for at-risk students, who have limited access to cultural resources in their lives. Other PCAH publications regarding arts education can be found at www.pcah.gov.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 9

INTRODUCTION

A subsection of the Platform specifically recommended creating an “Artists Corps” designed to bring artists into low-income schools and their communities. 

It is essential to understand both the challenges and the opportunities present in the 

current state of the field if we are to reinvest effectively in arts education, and yet it has been 

well over a decade since the PCAH or any federal entity examined these issues in depth.2

Therefore, the PCAH undertook an examination of the benefits of arts education and the 

needs of underserved public schools across the country. This analysis is followed by a set 

of general recommendations for federal policymakers and other stakeholders to further the 

benefits and reach of arts education in our nation’s schools that are consistent with President Obama’s Arts Policy Platform and with Mrs. Obama’s determination to give all American children access to the advantages that lead to success in life.

Research and Deliberation Process

The PCAH has sought information over the past eighteen months from a variety of sources 

about the best ways to expand arts opportunities for underserved schools. An independent 

consultant and researcher was retained to guide the PCAH through this process, and also to 

review existing studies and data in the field. 

The PCAH reviewed past federal efforts supporting employment of artists in schools 

and communities, from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) to the Comprehensive 

Employment and Training Act (CETA) and evaluated seminal and recent research findings 

about arts education results and best practices.3 Simultaneously, working groups, focus 

groups, and information-sharing conversations were held across the country, along with 

interviews with stakeholders and experts from numerous fields. These included federal 

agencies, regional and state arts organizations, professional associations, advocacy groups, 

and local programs with innovative approaches to education, service, and the arts. The 

2 Although not wide-ranging in scope, studies from several federal agencies have looked at discrete aspects of arts education during this time, e.g. the National Assessment of Educational Progress’ study of 8th grade arts performance, the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office report on access to arts education, and most recently, the National Endowment for 

the Arts analysis of the relationship between arts education and arts participation. 

3 Examples of past efforts are included in Appendix C, summaries of key studies in Appendix A, and descriptions of sample model programs in Appendix B.
10 Reinvesting in Arts Education

INTRODUCTION

PCAH has also conducted site visits to model arts programs around the country. While it

was impossible to speak with everyone who had expertise in the field, the knowledge accumulated by the Committee was impressive, and represented a diverse range of viewpoints, 

perspectives, and experiences. 

Perspectives about the best way to meet the President’s charge evolved over the 

months of consultations and many of the PCAH’s initial assumptions were reinforced. Respondents repeatedly emphasized the value of a national platform for bringing visibility to 

the central role that arts can play in transforming teaching and learning. They agreed that 

this time of educational crisis and transformation is the optimal moment for the federal 

government to make a major statement about the value of bringing high quality arts teaching to more schools. 

Two themes emerged that the Committee found compelling. First was the diversity and dynamism of the different approaches to providing arts education flourishing in pockets of the country, often through the combined support and leadership 

from nonprofit community arts organizations, visionary school principals, private philanthropy, and parent groups. Almost every community –– indeed, almost every school 

–– that tries to address the vexing challenge of how to get more arts into schools does so 

differently. A complex patchwork of arts education services across the country is the 

result,4 representing a mix of delivery models that includes standards-based sequential arts curricula taught by arts specialists5; formal and informal arts integration strategies6; and short and long term teaching residencies for artists.7 It also involves a wide array of organizations, school and state officials whose roles and initiative vary from place to

4 Some even argue that the very complexity of arts education works against broad understanding of its value (Driver, 

2010).

5 Art specialists (sometimes called arts education specialists) are professionals certified and qualified to teach in the 

various arts disciplines in the K-12 setting. Their preparation includes child development, pedagogy, and classroom 

management in addition to training in their art form.

6 Arts integration is the practice of using arts strategies to build skills and teach classroom subjects across different disciplines, including reading, math, science, and social studies. In recent years, it has formed the basis for several successful school reform initiatives, and has generated a lot of enthusiasm from classroom teachers, school administrators and 

policy researchers for its ability to increase student engagement and overall learning. 

7 Teaching artists are professional working artists who also teach in schools. They serve to both supplement uneven arts 

offerings and to provide short or long term instruction, bringing with them real world experiences and often projectbased learning.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 11

INTRODUCTION

place. There is no one model that works best for every community, and no single solution for 

the host of economic, pedagogic and logistical challenges faced by arts education advocates. 

However, in many cases, even in this difficult economy, some communities and schools 

have crafted arts education models that are working well for their students and delivering 

impressive results. We certainly learned that while national leadership and more federal resources for arts education are critically important, a singular new national program would 

not necessarily be the most effective way to advance arts education. Many advised PCAH 

to bring visibility to and build on existing efforts to strengthen the quality of arts education 

and extend their reach to serve more students.We were also cautioned not to unintentionally undermine ongoing efforts designed to hire more arts specialists and implement sequential arts curricula.

The second theme was the need to address the persistent inequities in the distribution of arts education so that more students experience the benefits of arts-rich school 

environments. Recent analyses revealed that the schools with students who could most 

benefit from the documented advantages of arts strategies are often those that either do 

not recognize the benefits of arts education or do not have the resources to provide it to their 

students. Current budgetary crises as well as the narrowing of curricula have forced some 

schools to curtail arts programs when they are most needed. This situation highlights the 

growing disparity between those who are able to take advantage of the benefits of arts education, and those who are not.

The Committee has endeavored to bring into focus highlights from arts education research and approaches of the last decade, and to illustrate how schools and communities 

are successfully bringing arts into public schools in today’s economic and pedagogical climate. This report includes a description of key findings about current critical education 

needs, the factors that are converging to create opportunities for bringing more arts into 

schools, and the potential measurable benefits of arts initiatives. We also provide specific 

recommendations for action. PCAH members have added their own formative educational 

experiences to the mix of ideas. Public school experiences with the arts changed the course 

of the lives of many PCAH members, business people and government leaders as well as 

practicing artists. We all share a passionate commitment to bringing the arts to underserved students and schools.
INTRODUCTION

12 Reinvesting in Arts Education
INTRODUCTION

“The first step in winning the 

future is encouraging American 

innovation. None of us can predict 

with certainty what the next big 

industry will be or where the 

new jobs will come from. Thirty 

years ago, we couldn’t know that 

something called the Internet would 

lead to an economic revolution. 

What we can do –– what America 

does better than anyone else –– is 

spark the creativity and imagination 

of our people. 

But if we want to win the future 

then we also have to win the race 

to educate our kids... And so the 

question is whether all of us –– as 

citizens, and as parents –– are willing 

to do what’s necessary to give every 

child a chance to succeed.”

—President Obama, State of the Union Address, January 25, 2011

 Reinvesting in Arts Education 13

Photo by Don Usner
14 Reinvesting in Arts Education
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 15

THE CASE

Arts Education Outcomes

Aremarkably consistent picture of the value of the 

arts in a comprehensive PreK – grade 12 education emerges from 

a review of two decades of theory and policy recommendations 

 about arts education. Over the past decade, the National Governors Association, the Education Commission of the States, the National Association of State 

Boards of Education, the SCANS Commission (Department of Labor), and the Council of 

Chief State School Officers8 –– professional groups with a broad education interest –– have 

begun promoting the value of arts eduction using the same arguments as traditional arts 

advocates such as the National Endowment for the Arts, the Arts Education Partnership, the 

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, and Americans for the Arts. Last year’s U.S. 

Conference of Mayors, which represents the mayors of over 1200 cities nationwide, urged 

school districts to use federal and state resources to provide direct instruction in the arts 

and integrate the arts with other core subjects.9

While there is support for the intrinsic value of developing cultural literacy and teach8 See Appendix D, the bibliography, for references to reports from major task forces and national groups. Perhaps the 

strongest evidence of broad education policy support for the place of arts education in the K-12 public education system 

is represented in standards for the arts adopted by 48 states and arts requirements for high school graduation in place in 

40 states (Education Commission of the States; NASAA). 

9 USCM 2010 Resolutions section on Arts Education.
16 Reinvesting in Arts Education

THE CASE: ARTS EDUCATION OUTCOMES

ing artistic skills and techniques, leadership groups typically emphasize instrumental outcomes derived from high quality arts education in one or more of the following categories:

•	 Student achievement, typically as represented by reading and mathematics 

performance on high stakes tests, including transfer of skills learning from the 

arts to learning in other academic areas—for example, the spatial-temporal reasoning skills developed by music instruction;

•	 Student motivation and engagement, including improved attendance, persistence, focused attention, heightened educational aspirations, and intellectual 

risk taking;

•	 Development ofhabits of mind including problem solving, critical and creative 

thinking, dealing with ambiguity and complexity, integration of multiple skill 

sets, and working with others; and

•	 Development of social competencies, including collaboration and team work 

skills, social tolerance, and self-confidence.

Each category of outcomes is composed of many distinct behaviors that have been described 

with a variety of labels and supported by findings from research studies and evaluations. 

Below we highlight examples of landmark research findings and more recent evaluations 

related to the outcomes associated with arts education; refer to Appendix A for examples 

of the well-known studies and compilations of research that have been frequently cited as 

support for arts education. 

Foundational Studies

The Arts Education Partnership (AEP) has been instrumental in compiling research studies 

related to academic outcomes. Its initial research synthesis, Champions of Change (Fiske, 

1999) reported seven correlative studies that show the pattern of linkage between high levels of arts participation and higher grades and test scores in math and reading. Included was 

the well-regarded Catterall study that first examined data from the National Educational 

Longitudinal Survey (NELS)10 about the relationships between involvement in the arts and 

10 The NELS data base included national data from 25,000 students over a ten year span.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 17

THE CASE: ARTS EDUCATION OUTCOMES

academic performance. The quantitative results (e.g., standardized test scores, academic 

grades, and dropout rates) showed that the probability of having more arts experiences in 

school was greater for economically advantaged students than for low-socioeconomic status students. However, students with high involvement in the arts, including minority and 

low-income students, performed better in school and stayed in school longer than students 

with low involvement, the relative advantage increasing over the school years. Low-income 

students involved in band and orchestra outscored others on the NELS math assessment; 

low-income students involved in drama showed greater reading proficiency and more positive self-concept compared to those with little or no involvement. 

AEP followed up its original compilation of research with Critical Links: Learning in 

the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development (Deasy, 2002) that reported on 62 

separate research studies, including several meta-analyses, many of which found transfer 

of skills from the arts (visual arts, dance, drama, music, multi-arts) to learning in other subject areas.11 Other studies report positive outcomes such as habits of mind, self-motivation, 

and social skills, including tolerance and empathy and positive peer interaction, from arts 

engagement. 

Two highly regarded studies are especially relevant to consider in light of the potential of the arts to reduce dropout rates by increasing motivation and engagement in learning. Long before afterschool programs became a national initiative, anthropologist Shirley 

Brice Heath studied non-school youth organizations in low-income neighborhoods. Her 

research showed that those students who were involved in arts education for at least nine 

hours a week were four times more likely to have high academic achievement and three 

times more likely to have high attendance (Heath, 1998). Heath’s findings are especially 

credible because she was not specifically studying arts education; the findings were an unexpected outcome of another investigation. Along the same lines, education researcher 

Milbrey McLaughlin, while conducting a longitudinal study of the lives of youth in low-income neighborhoods found that those who participated in arts programs were more likely 

to be high academic achievers, be elected to class office, and participate in a math or science 

fair (McLaughlin, 2000).

11 The document includes studies connecting arts to basic reading skills, literacy and language development, writing, 

mathematics, and science.
18 Reinvesting in Arts Education

THE CASE: ARTS EDUCATION OUTCOMES

Recent Evaluation Findings

The studies cited above have long formed the core arguments used by advocates to make the 

case for arts education. Some of the foundational research about the outcomes of arts education was later questioned as merely descriptive in nature and lacking in adequate analysis of the features of the arts education treatment responsible for outcomes.12 However, 

recently there have been a number of developments, including updates of earlier studies, 

application of techniques used in brain research to understand more about how learning 

in the arts affects the brain, and mounting evidence about the school-wide effects of arts 

integration. 

Longitudinal follow-up. In 2009, James Catterall was able to follow the original cohort of NELS students into their mid-twenties and found the persistence of strong connections between arts learning in earlier years and overall academic success (“doing well”) and 

pro-social outcomes (“doing good”). The advantages in performance of the arts-involved 

students relative to other students have increased over time. Most strikingly, arts-engaged 

low-income students are more likely than their non-arts-engaged peers to have attended 

and done well in college, obtained employment with a future, volunteered in their communities and participated in the political process by voting. In the many types of comparisons 

that Catterall tracks, arts-engaged low-income students tend to perform more like average 

higher-income students. Catterall’s research continues to suggest that the role of arts in developing competency may be especially important for students who otherwise feel isolated 

or excluded, e.g., English learners. The findings are compelling because it is rare in education research to encounter the longitudinal comparisons with such sizeable differences 

across groups (Catterall, 2009). 

Several studies have associated student engagement in school and motivation for 

learning with arts participation. A U. S. Department of Justice study reported participation 

in arts programming led to decreased delinquency and drug use, increased self-esteem, and 

12 In the year 2000, an article in The Journal of Aesthetic Education generated controversy among arts education advocates when it urged caution about making instrumental claims based on correlational rather than causal links between 

arts education and learning outcomes. The article set the stage for more clarity in reporting arts outcomes and sparked 

interest in more in-depth research. In 2004, the Arts Education Partnership developed a research agenda to invite researchers from a variety of disciplines to study the complex cognitive developments involved in the arts and their implications for education.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 19

THE CASE: ARTS EDUCATION OUTCOMES

more positive interactions with peers and adults. Students who experience success in arts 

appreciate the results of effort and persistence, and are more motivated to apply themselves 

to other learning tasks (Israel, D., 2009). In a study released last year, Dallas’ Big Thought 

program found that sustained engagement in a fine arts discipline gave high school students a substantial advantage in reading achievement when compared to students who took 

fewer arts courses, and that all students who participated in clubs or groups that focused 

on creative activities had an advantage in reading and math achievement (Bransom et 

al., 2010). 

Evidence for arts integration. The documented benefits of arts integration have also 

been accumulating over the past decade, although only recently have researchers begun to 

understand why arts integration may hold unique potential as an educational reform model. 

While the term arts integration takes on different meanings to different people, it can be 

loosely defined as teaching “through” and “with” the arts, creating relationships between 

different arts disciplines and other classroom skills and subjects (Burnaford, 2007). In recent years, it has formed the basis for several successful school reform initiatives, and has 

generated a lot of enthusiasm from classroom teachers, school administrators and policy 

researchers for its ability to produce results. Studies have now documented significant 

links between arts integration models and academic and social outcomes for students, efficacy for teachers, and school-wide improvements in culture and climate. Arts integration 

is efficient, addressing a number of outcomes at the same time. Most important, the greatest gains in schools with arts integration are often seen school-wide and also with the most 

hard-to-reach and economically disadvantaged students. 

Earlier studies about the benefits of arts integration (Fiske, 1999) reported that arts 

integration approaches were successful in producing better attendance and fewer discipline problems, increased graduation rates, and improved test scores; motivating students 

who were difficult to reach otherwise; and providing challenges to more academically successful students. Studies from Minnesota (Ingram and Reidel, 2003; DeMoss and Morris, 

2006) demonstrated particular benefits from arts integration for economically disadvantaged students and English learners in the form of reading achievement gains—not surprising given the similarities between effective language instruction techniques and visual arts 

and theater skills.
20 Reinvesting in Arts Education

THE CASE: ARTS EDUCATION OUTCOMES

School-wide achievement gains have been observed when arts integration has been 

applied as a school reform and improvement strategy. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan 

has noted his positive experience with arts in the Chicago Public Schools, a centerpiece of 

which is the Chicago Arts Partnership in Education (CAPE).13 The 19 Chicago elementary 

schools operating the CAPE arts integration model showed consistently higher average 

scores on the district’s reading and mathematics assessments over a six year period when 

compared to all district elementary schools (Catterall and Waldorf, 1999). Moreover, in the 

CAPE schools there were associated positive changes in school climate, e.g., leadership, focus on instruction, teacher colleagueship, and participation in decision making.

CAPE researchers also began tackling questions about how arts integration supports 

student engagement in learning (DeMoss and Morris, 2002). Compared to traditional instructional experiences, arts-integrated units consistently engaged students in complex analytical cognitive activity, including those students who struggle with academic tasks. Students who were learning through arts-integrated units expressed no feelings of boredom 

or discouragement with the learning methods and showed interest in independent 

learning. After working through the non-arts units, students often self-described as discouraged; after arts-integrated units students demonstrated increased interest in the subject matter.

Probably the most extensive and systematic study of the benefits of arts integration is 

associated with North Carolina’s network of A+ Schools (which now have been established 

also in Oklahoma and Arkansas). A+ Schools are a comprehensive education reform model 

that is based on using arts-integrated instruction, incorporating Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, recent brain research findings, and dance, drama, music, visual art, and 

creative writing. More than twelve years of research about the A+ Schools in North Carolina tracked consistent gains in student achievement, the schools’ engagement of parents and 

community, and other measures of learning and success. Most notably, the A+ Schools with 

higher proportions of disadvantaged and minority students performed as well on statewide 

13 While we highlight here CAPE because of its associated research, there are other notable programs in Chicago that 

bring arts into the public schools. One good example is Project AIM, the Center for Community Arts Partnership’s arts 

integration project which brings teaching artists into classrooms to work with students and teachers. Another major 

provider is the 50 year old Urban Gateways program, which has focused a number of its programs on arts integration 

with promising results.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 21

THE CASE: ARTS EDUCATION OUTCOMES

reading and mathematics assessments as students from more advantaged schools. This is 

doubly impressive considering that while other schools have focused on basic skills in response to high stakes testing, the A+ Schools have been able to achieve reading and mathematics gains on statewide accountability tests without narrowing the curriculum (Corbitt, 

McKenney, Noblit, and Wilson, 2001).

An evaluation of Oklahoma’s A+ Schools underscores the school-wide value of arts 

integration. The study found significant differences in students’ attitudes (more likely to 

find school challenging, interesting, and enjoyable) in schools where the A+ model was embedded in school policy and daily instructional practice—in contrast to schools where arts 

integration was treated as an add-on. The Oklahoma state report card’s Academic Performance Index data show statistically significant advantages for A+ students compared to state 

and district averages; this is true even though, as in North Carolina, the Oklahoma A+ schools 

typically serve higher percentages of minority and economically disadvantaged students 

(Barry, 2010).

Last year, a Montgomery County, Maryland study with a rigorous evaluation design 

provided a more fine-grained look at the results of arts integration; the study compared 

three arts integration-focused schools (AIMS) to three control schools over a three year period. During that time AIMS schools substantially reduced the achievement gap between 

high-poverty minority students and other students. The AIMS school with the highest 

percentage of minority and low-income students reduced the reading gap by 14 percentage points and the math gap by 26 percentage points over a three year period. In the 

comparison schools, the number of proficient students actually decreased by 4.5% over the 

same time period (RealVisions, 2007). The AIMS schools with the lowest number of proficient students in reading and mathematics at the outset of the study experienced a 23% 

increase in the number scoring proficient over a three year period. 

The Montgomery County evaluation also closely tracked the experiences of classroom 

teachers as they learned how to integrate the arts. Almost all teachers (79%) agreed that 

they had “totally changed their teaching” and (94%) that they had gained “additional ways 

of teaching critical thinking skills.” Montgomery County’s arts integration results prompted the Maryland State Department of Education to invest in tracking arts integration and 
22 Reinvesting in Arts Education

THE CASE: ARTS EDUCATION OUTCOMES

developing assessments of arts learning (ExCLAIMS, 2010).14 

Brain research. In just the last five years, researchers have begun to tackle the question of arts education’s benefits with a scientific approach, probing the ways in which specific practices within arts disciplines influence learning and skill transfer. The field of neuroscience in particular is beginning to unpack the complex ways that certain types of arts 

experiences affect cognitive development—research that will have major implications for 

the field of education, including helping to shape arts experiences for maximum benefit to 

students. 

Through the leadership of the Dana Foundation, which supports brain research, cognitive neuroscientists in seven universities have undertaken formal studies of the connections between arts training and academic performance using advanced techniques including brain imaging (Asbury & Rich, 2008). Increasingly, researchers are finding evidence 

that early arts education is a building block of developing brain function. Examples of findings, some of which corroborate earlier findings, include:

•	 Music training is closely correlated with development of phonological awareness –– one of the most important predictors of early reading skills.15

•	 Childrenwhoweremotivatedtopractice a specific artformdevelopedimproved

attention and also improved general intelligence. Training of attention and focus 

leads to improvement in other cognitive domains.

•	 Links have been found between high levels of music training and the ability to

manipulate information in both working memory and long-term memory. 

Outcomes from arts integration in particular have intrigued neuro-scientists in addressing the question of transfer of learning in other subjects. Neuro-Ed Initiative researchers 

at Johns Hopkins hypothesize that arts integration, which emphasizes repetition of infor14 While delivering impressive outcomes for students, arts integration also shows great promise as a method to involve 

and engage a community in arts education. In Dallas, Big Thought has demonstrated how arts integration can be the 

catalyst for linking schools, community partners, families, and funders around a learning system coordinated in and out 

of school. As a result, the Dallas school district has been able to provide visual art and music for every elementary student in the district every week while also increasing out-of-school arts opportunities for thousands of students.

15 Phonological awareness is correlated with music training and the development of a specific brain pathway. Phonological awareness, the ability to hear and produce separate sounds, has been found to be important in helping children learn 

to read words and to spell (National Reading Panel, 2000).
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 23

THE CASE: ARTS EDUCATION OUTCOMES

mation in multiple ways, provides the advantage of embedding knowledge in long-term 

memory. The brain prioritizes emotionally-tinged information (again, a possible additional 

advantage for learning through music or theater, for example) for conversion to long-term 

memory. The rehearsal and repetition of information embedded in multiple domains may 

cause an actual change in the physical structure of neurons (Rudacliffe, 2010). The initiative is one of several research projects that are looking more systematically at how arts 

instruction supports learning transfer. Such scientific research may also help to uncover 

the reasons for the observations that many teachers have made about how students learn 

differently—some seem to learn best kinesthetically, others respond best to visual or aural 

approaches.

Beyond arts-specific research, education researchers have produced rigorous studies 

and meta-analyses that have begun to illuminate the workings of complex learning processes in other content areas. Studies that are not specifically about arts education have identified types of learning experiences that have implications for arts education. For example, 

reading researchers have found that visualization can produce significant gains in reading 

comprehension (Shanahan, et al., 2010). Visualization means that children can create mental images as they read—clearly a skill that could be supported by helping students draw or 

paint pictures or demonstrate with movement or acting what they imagine from a story. 
INTRODUCTION

“Nothing –– nothing –– is 

more important in the longrun to American prosperity 

than boosting the skills and 

attainment of the nation’s 

students. . . Closing the 

achievement gap and closing 

the opportunity gap is the civil 

rights issue of our generation. 

One quarter of U.S. high school 

students drop out or fail to 

graduate on time. Almost one 

million students leave our 

schools for the streets each 

year. That is economically 

unsustainable and morally 

unacceptable.”

—U. S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan

24 Reinvesting in Arts Education

Photo by Don Usner
INTRODUCTION

 Reinvesting in Arts Education 25
INTRODUCTION

26 Reinvesting in Arts Education
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 27

THE NEED

Education System in Crisis

The urgency for major education reform expressed by Secretary of Education Duncan has been echoed by President Barack 

Obama and leaders in all sectors. It is widely agreed that the U.S. 

public education system is not adequately serving a significant 

portion of our nation’s children and that public K-12 schools must change dramatically to 

achieve the Administration’s goal that the United States become a global leader in postsecondary attainment by 2020. School leaders and teachers will need to step up to the challenge of finding new ways to engage many more students in meaningful learning to meet the 

goal at a time when schools are grappling to reach a broadly culturally diverse student body 

and figure out how to harness information technologies to reshape learning.

Dropout Rates

The most obvious expression of education failure is the alarming national high school 

dropout rate, which continues in the face of evidence about the severe detrimental consequences in earning power associated with leaving school before graduation.16 The national 

16 In 2007, the median income of persons who had not completed high school was $24,000 compared to $40,000 for those 

who completed high school, including those with GED certificates (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009).
28 Reinvesting in Arts Education

THE NEED: EDUCATION SYSTEM IN CRISIS

dropout rate has fluctuated between 25-30% since 2001, and for some demographic groups 

and geographic areas, the statistics are far worse. By some estimates, approximately 50% 

of male students from disadvantaged minority groups leave school before graduation (EPE 

Research Center, 2010; Swanson, 2009). An estimated 2 million students attend a high 

school in which fewer than 50% of students graduate—schools that have come to be known 

as “dropout factories” (Balfanz, 2010). In recognition of the seriousness of the current situation in education, the National Conference of State Legislators has included improvement 

in dropout rates and student achievement as one of its top issues for 2011. The recent small 

up-turn in graduation rate (to 75% in 2008 after several straight years of decline) provides a 

glimmer of hope that policy changes can reverse a negative trend.17

Studies about the reasons for these trends provide a remarkably consistent picture: 

students report being bored, almost half saying that classes are not interesting (this is true 

even of those with high grades who drop out), and over two-thirds say they are not inspired 

to work hard and that too little was expected of them (Bridgeland et al., 2006). Students 

show the signs of risk for dropping out as early as sixth grade in the form of high rates of absenteeism, low levels of student engagement, failing grades, and disruptive behaviors (Child 

Trends DataBank, 2010; Pytel, 2008). 

Need for New Skill Sets

The dropout statistics are distressing, but policymakers and business leaders are also very 

concerned about the skills level of students who do graduate from high school. The narrow focus on only teaching the basics clearly has not been the answer. Many high school 

graduates lack the skills to make them successful in post-secondary education and later in 

the workforce. These are sometimes referred to as 21st Century Skills, or habits of mind, 

and include problem solving, critical and creative thinking, dealing with ambiguity and 

complexity, integration of multiple skill sets, and the ability to perform cross-disciplinary 

work. 

17 The year 2008 is the most recent year for which national data are available. The projection is for approximately 1.3 

million dropouts from the class of 2010 (EPE Research Center, 2010). America’s Promise Alliance calculates that the 

nation will need a fivefold increase in graduation rates from those achieved in the past six years to achieve the President’s 

90% goal by 2020.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 29

THE NEED: EDUCATION SYSTEM IN CRISIS

Leaders worry that the United States is losing its competitive edge in creativity and 

innovation, and that the call for ever more rigorous academic standards is insufficient without a concomitant focus on developing creativity and imagination. The recent financial 

crisis has focused an unprecedented amount of attention to the changing demands on the 

workforce to maintain global competitiveness. Numerous and varied national task forces 

have produced reports about the need to reform schooling to develop those critical skills: 

•	 InAre They Really Ready to Work, the Conference Board, the Partnership for 21st

Century Skills, and others noted that employers are placing value not just on basic but also applied skills, such as problem solving, collaboration and creativity, 

as critical for success in the workplace (Conference Board, 2006).

•	 A July 2010 Newsweek cover story titled “The Creativity Crisis” drew attention 

to a growing creativity gap based on the significant decline in tested creativity 

scores of American students over the past twenty years. The report looked at almost 300,000 Torrance test scores in children and adults, and noted that downward scores are more pronounced in younger children in America, from kindergarten through eighth grade.18

•	 In Tough Choices or Tough Times, the New Commission on the Skills of the 

American Workforce calls for rethinking schooling so that America does not lose 

its place in the global economy (New Commission on the Skills of the American 

Workforce, 2006).

The implications for educators are daunting. They must find ways to reach and motivate 

more students and, at the same time, teach more challenging content and 21st Century 

Skills. The expectation is that they must create an exciting climate of relevant learning 

tasks for students who are increasingly turning to digital devices and not teachers, texts, or 

each other for learning new information and expressing ideas. For teachers and principals 

who continue to be constrained by rigid curricula, the pressures of standardized testing and 

ever-increasing budget cuts, the demands seem overwhelming.

18 The report also drew attention to the lack of nurturing of creativity in the U.S. as compared to other countries (e.g., 

Great Britain, members of the European Union, and China), which are now making efforts to infuse curriculum and 

teaching practice with idea generation, problem-based learning, real world inquiry, and innovation (Bronson & Merryman, 2010).
30 Reinvesting in Arts Education

THE NEED: EDUCATION SYSTEM IN CRISIS

The nation’s governors, school boards, and even professional teacher unions have begun to re-think the structure and governance of schools, the content students should learn, 

and how best to prepare and support teachers for accelerated demands.19 This reform effort is qualitatively different from the school improvements of recent decades. Reformers 

are calling now for transformation of learning, that is, fundamental change in what and how 

students learn. The magnitude of the changes envisioned will require commitment and 

participation from all sectors of American life. 

Decline of Arts in Schools 

As detailed in the preceding section, there is growing consensus, and increasing data, about 

the potential for arts in schools to be a force for positive change in this transformation.20

Yet, paradoxically, the nation’s public schools are on a downward trend in terms of providing students meaningful access to the arts. Some statistics suggest that fewer than half of 

adults report having participated in arts lessons or classes in school—a decline from about 

65% in the 1980s. The decline follows years of steady increases in reported participation 

between the 1930s and the 1980s.21 The declines pose concern for the health of the nation’s 

arts economy since arts education is the strongest predictor of almost all types of arts participation. (Rabkin and Hedberg, 2011). 

There is great stress now on arts programs as school boards around the country wrestle with budget woes, faced with the question of whether they can afford to preserve arts 

offerings—let alone expand what they have traditionally provided. Tight school budgets 

are a major problem but some also blame the narrowing of the curriculum as a result of 

emphasis on accountability for basic skills. A study by the Center on Education Policy reported decreased arts education instruction time in 30% of school districts with at least one 

19 The U. S. Department of Education’s eagerly sought-after Race to the Top state grants required applicants to give assurances of state-level actions toward higher content standards for K-12 learning, preparation and professional development to assure quality teachers, an increased number of charter schools and other alternative governance models. 

20 The section on Case: Arts Education Outcomes describes the evidence for the effects of arts education and arts integration on valued outcomes such as student motivation, academic performance, and teacher efficacy. Appendix A details 

specific studies.

21 Rabkin reached this conclusion after reviewing the data from the Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts between 

1982 and 2008.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 31

THE NEED: EDUCATION SYSTEM IN CRISIS

underperforming elementary school22 (McMurrer, 2007). 

It is difficult to get an accurate current picture of arts offerings because there is no 

consistent required data collection about what schools offer or how students are achieving 

in the arts. 23 During the research phase, almost all of the state arts agencies representatives 

whom we convened reported cutbacks in their arts education budgets and the arts education residencies they offer in schools as a result of overall budget reductions. Such residencies may have been the students’ only contacts with working artists; most states have either 

drastically reduced the number of schools that can host residencies, eliminated them entirely, or reduced the scope of residencies.24 

A few states have conducted surveys to determine local arts offerings. Recent results 

from a survey in Washington State show that 33% of elementary students receive less than 

one hour a week on the average of arts instruction, and almost 10% offer no formal arts instruction at all. Sixty-three percent of principals are dissatisfied with the amount of arts 

education in their schools (Arts Education Research Initiative, 2009). Other states’ surveys 

add to this picture of constraints. Ohio reported an increase in the percent of districts in 

which students receive less than an hour per week of visual arts and music instruction and a 

decrease in every form of support for professional development for arts education teachers 

(Ohio Alliance for Arts Education).25 Moreover, in this climate of heightened accountability, some believe that schools will give instructional time only to subjects that are included 

in high stakes testing. While almost all states have arts standards, fewer than a third have 

required arts assessments—so there is scant opportunity to demonstrate student learning 

in the arts. 

22 Districts participating had at least one elementary school that had been identified as not meeting adequate yearly 

progress under the No Child Left Behind Act. 

23 A forthcoming report from the Department of Education’s National Center on Education Statistics (NCES) will 

provide a snapshot of the availability of arts instruction in elementary and secondary schools and the availability of arts 

specialists to teach arts classes. Future reports from NCES will provide findings on additional indicators about the status of arts education and changes over the past decade.

24 Many state arts agencies have experienced dramatic budget reductions. The Florida state agency, for example, has 

less than $1 million for all state arts activities, including arts education, down from a high of $39 million. The Michigan 

state arts agency had a $29 million budget for grants in 2002 and now has $2 million for the entire state. 

25 Ohio has recently conducted a new survey; preliminary results show that the majority of high schools and almost all 

middle schools do not offer theater and that only a few schools offer dance. Over 80% of classroom teachers report receiving no professional development in the arts. Arts-related field trips have declined and over one-third of schools have 

not had an arts related assembly in three years.
32 Reinvesting in Arts Education

THE NEED: EDUCATION SYSTEM IN CRISIS

Inequity in Arts Opportunities

Even in places where arts education funding continues at some level, the opportunities are 

not equitably distributed among schools and the students they serve. There is increasing 

evidence that the students in schools that are most challenged and serving the highest need 

student populations often have the fewest arts opportunities. While this pattern is similar 

to the pattern of inequities associated with other education resources, in practice it means 

that the students who could benefit most from the increased motivation and life/workforce 

skills fostered by engagement with the arts in school are the least likely to have the opportunity. In response to Congressional request, the U.S. Government Accountability Office 

conducted a survey of access to arts education and found that there was a significant difference among the percent of teachers reporting decreased time spent on arts education. 

In schools identified as needing improvement and/or with higher percentages of minority 

students, teachers were much more likely to report a reduction in time spent in arts instruction (GAO, 2009). Of great concern, respondents to a survey of arts participation from some 

minority groups (African American and Latino) are only half as likely to report having had 

arts lessons or classes in school as others.26 The declines in childhood arts education since 

the 1980s for those groups are substantial—49 percent for African American and 40 percent 

for Latino children (Rabkin and Hedberg, 2011).

When arts achievement has been measured, the results bear out system inequities. In 

the 2008 National Assessment of Educational Progress in the Arts, focusing on music and 

visual arts, students from lower income families, African America and Hispanic students, 

and students in urban schools scored significantly lower than their counterparts in the 

skills assessment (Keiper et.al., 2009). 

Very telling is a recent study of New York City high schools, which compared arts resources in schools grouped by graduation rate. Schools in the bottom third in graduation 

rates (less than 50% graduation rate) offered the least access to arts education—fewer certified arts teachers per student, fewer dedicated arts spaces, fewer arts and culture partnerships, and so forth. The report concludes that “in New York City, the cultural capital of the 

26 Rabkin reached this conclusion after reviewing the data from the Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts between 

1982 and 2008.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 33

THE NEED: EDUCATION SYSTEM IN CRISIS

world, public school students do not enjoy equal access to an arts education. . . Where the 

arts could have the greatest impact, students have the least opportunity to participate in 

arts learning” (Center for Arts Education, 2009).

In California, a study by SRI International of the statewide arts education picture 

found a similar pattern. While California’s Education Code calls for all schools to offer 

courses for students in four arts disciplines, almost one-third offered no courses in any arts 

discipline. When arts education was offered, there were significant differences by socioeconomic status; only 25% of students in high poverty settings had music compared to 45% 

in low poverty. Similar patterns were found in other disciplines. The most frequently cited 

reason for the lack of arts education opportunity was inadequate funding followed by a focus on improving test scores (Center for Education Policy, SRI International, n.d.). 

The results of the New York City and California studies are especially distressing but 

they were completed before the most recent waves of funding cutbacks that schools faced in 

2010. The situation is undoubtedly bleaker now.
INTRODUCTION

34 Reinvesting in Arts Education
“ ...the nation’s leadership 

in technology and 

innovation depends 

on a ‘deep vein of 

creativity’ and people 

who can ...write books, 

build furniture, make 

movies, and imagine new 

kinds of software that 

will capture people’s 

imagination...” 

 —Tough Choices or Tough Times, National Center 

 on the Education and the Economy

 Reinvesting in Arts Education 35

Photo by Keelan Wackman
36 Reinvesting in Arts Education
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 37

THE OPPORTUNITY

Point of Inflection

While the overall picture can appear bleak, in 

recent years several factors have converged to build a 

strong case for scaling up arts education opportunities to reach more students—one that is supported by 

educators, business leaders, parents, artists, and members of the general public, and which 

would be successful in meeting important educational outcomes. These factors include:

•	 new allies interested in developing students’ creativity and problem solving

skills—skills that are directly supported by arts education; 

•	 increased interest in the potential of arts integration as a way to bring arts to

more young people and achieve other benefits as well;

•	 a developing community of teaching artists who are eager to serve in education

in a systematic and dynamic way; and

•	 a critical mass of successful arts education approaches and models, including arts integration models, that can serve as the foundation for reaching more 

schools.

Understanding more about these factors is critical for appreciating the timeliness of a 

stepped up national effort to bring more arts into public schools. 
38 Reinvesting in Arts Education

THE OPPORTUNITY: POINT OF INFLECTION

New Allies in Creativity 

National task force reports increasingly link the benefits of arts education to the changing 

demands on the workforce in the knowledge economy (National Governors Association, 

2001; National Center on Education and the Economy, 2006; Conference Board, 2006). 

Last year’s IBM 2010 Global CEO survey found that CEOs in 60 countries believe creativity 

is the most important leadership quality and that creativity helps employees capitalize on 

complexity (IBM, 2010). A recent study by the Conference Board reports that employers 

rate creativity and innovation among the top five important skills for workers and believe 

that the most essential skills for demonstrating creativity are the ability to identify new patterns of behavior or new combinations of actions and integrate knowledge across different 

disciplines. The same employers rank arts study as the second most important indicator of 

a potential creative worker, second only to a track record in entrepreneurship (Lichtenberg 

et al., 2008). Professional graduate school programs are increasingly recognizing the role 

of the arts in developing advanced workforce skills. At least 40 MBA programs now feature design courses. Design courses develop a competitive advantage in the marketplace; 

innovative design combines aesthetics with environmental sensitivity, skill in creating and 

manipulating symbols and sounds, ergonomics and an understanding of consumer preference (NASAA, n.d.). 

The European Union (EU) has recognized the critical importance of creativity in education. As part of the European Year of Creativity in 2009, teachers in the 27 member countries were surveyed about their perspectives. Over 95% of teacher respondents believe that 

creativity is a fundamental competence to be developed in school and is applicable to all 

subject areas. Sixty percent of EU teachers indicated they had received training in innovative pedagogies and 40% directly in creativity (Quintin, 2009).27

While the arts certainly do not have a monopoly on development of creativity, the approaches used in teaching the arts are very compatible with the development of balance 

among the three types of abilities associated with creativity as described in a well-known 

theory of creativity development:

27 Writing in the New York Times, Thomas Freidman recently described the U.S. Education Department as the “epicenter of national security,” noting that we have been “out-educated” now for years. He goes on to quote the author of The 

Global Achievement Gap about the new basic skills that students need for the knowledge economy: the ability to do critical thinking and problem-solving; the ability to communicate effectively; and the ability to collaborate (Wagner, 2008).
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 39

THE OPPORTUNITY: POINT OF INFLECTION

•	 synthetic ability or generatingnewandnovelideas;

•	 analytic ability or critical thinking which involves choosing which ideas to pursue; and

•	 practical ability or translating ideas into action(Sternberg&Williams, 1996).

In Sternberg & Williams’ theory of creativity, it is easy to see the place for arts skill development, the value of practice, and the importance of models of excellence. It is also evident 

that many different types of arts education approaches—standards-based, arts integration, 

teaching artists, arts specialists—could develop those creative abilities. Other popular proponents of enhancing creativity in learners such as Sir Ken Robinson and Daniel Pink identify similar concepts using labels even more akin to arts learning, i.e., Pink’s terminology of 

symphony, story, design, play, meaning, and empathy.

The Promise of Arts Integration

During the research phase, we encountered great enthusiasm for supporting and expanding 

arts integration. Arts integration is the practice of using arts strategies to build skills and 

teach classroom subjects across different disciplines. When implemented effectively and 

with rigor, students receive both high quality arts instruction and subject matter instruction in reading, math, science and other subjects within an integrated lesson plan. As we’ve 

discovered in the field and in the news lately, the possibilities for learning other subjects 

through the arts are limitless: young English learners practice English adverbs by following 

the directions of a dance instructor; algebra teachers help students create digital designs 

that demonstrate their understanding of mathematical relationships; and middle school 

students create and play musical instruments in the process of learning about sound and 

wave forms. 

The excitement about arts integration has several roots:

•	 themountingevidencefromwell-knownartsintegrationmodels,e.g.,A+Schools,

of gains in achievement as well as positive changes in school climate and teacher 

collaboration (as detailed in a previous section of this report);

•	 the potential contribution to the overall improvement of teaching, including

augmenting teachers’ skills in problem-centered, project-based and inquiry-ori-
40 Reinvesting in Arts Education

THE OPPORTUNITY: POINT OF INFLECTION

ented learning; performance assessment; and cross-disciplinary work with real 

world application; 

•	 thecompatibilityofartsintegrationmethodswithnewer researchfindingsabout

learning, including personalization; repetition and reinforcement through multiple modalities; fluency with symbol systems; and the continuum of stages from 

concrete to representational to abstract; and 

•	 the possibility of augmenting curricular offerings in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

There are many existing arts integration efforts around the country that could be strengthened and expanded to serve as models for other communities. Since 2002, the federal government has invested in arts integration programs through the Department of Education’s 

Arts in Education – Model Development and Dissemination grants program. The program 

has always required formal documentation and evaluation of the strategies programs used 

to integrate the arts into elementary and middle school curricula. This year, the results of 

what has been learned about effective strategies in arts integration from the grants will be 

made public. The field has eagerly awaited the results of the evaluation synthesis, and its 

release will likely stimulate even greater interest in the techniques and outcomes of arts integration.

Professional development for classroom teachers, arts specialists and teaching artists 

is crucial to an effective arts integration program. There are a number of model programs 

that have developed highly regarded training programs in arts integration for teaching artists, classroom teachers, and school administrators over the past decade. During the research phase, staff from the Arts Education in Maryland Schools Alliance (AMES) shared 

information from the arts integration training sequences they use to meet the growing demand from classroom teachers and teaching artists for more training. STUDIO in a School, 

the A+ Schools, and many organizations across the country have also been refining professional development in this area, in different disciplines, for a number of years. 

At a recent philanthropy forum on arts education, panelists discussed the value of 

arts integration as “the most significant innovation in the field over the last two decades...” 

and noted the potential openness of school administrators to arts integration as the most 
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 41

THE OPPORTUNITY: POINT OF INFLECTION

feasible way to increase the arts opportunities available to students. However, they also 

recognized the need for further development of arts integration: more clarity about the dimensions of quality, attention to developing systematic approaches to implementation, and 

sharing of best practices (McCann, 2010).

Teaching Artists as an Underutilized Resource

Over the course of our research, we also came to appreciate the potential and desire of working artists to serve their communities as teaching artists. Many leaders in the field of arts 

education pointed to the value of teaching artists, especially as part of long-term residencies, 

and we found that teaching artists are essential to many model arts education programs.28

Teaching artists are “hybrid professionals,” working artists who are experts in their fields 

and who also teach arts skills and lead arts integration projects. They have long had an important place in the arts education delivery system, but have been limited by insufficient 

resources to work long term and systemically, a lack of information and structure in the 

profession, and inconsistent training and certification. However, they have the potential to 

play a much stronger role in the future in expanding arts opportunities for more students. 

Teaching artists perform a function different from art specialists. Typically, art specialists are charged with delivering a systematic curriculum geared to state standards, 

usually through a sequence of prescribed courses. Teaching artists are usually focused on 

project-based learning activities that engage students, e.g., creating a student ensemble or 

producing a play, and they work as partners with classroom teachers to plan and deliver 

lessons that integrate the arts, e.g., bringing visual arts and music into the study of world 

cultures. They may supplement uneven arts offerings, especially in specialty areas such 

as dance and theater. Most importantly, teaching artists introduce students to the life of a 

working artist, often serving as role models for aspiring young artists, and connect students 

and schools to community resources. 

New evidence suggests that there is a large national pool of professional artists who are 

eager to serve as teaching artists. Education programs such as Music National Service that 

have recruited teaching artists for new programs have attracted as many as one hundred 

28 See Appendix B for descriptions of model programs that rely on teaching artists.
42 Reinvesting in Arts Education

THE OPPORTUNITY: POINT OF INFLECTION

candidates for any available position.29 Established programs such as STUDIO in a School 

and Urban Gateways also report that they are able to be highly selective because there are 

many more professional artists interested in teaching than the amount of available funding. For years, state arts agencies have recruited professional artists to maintain rosters of 

artists interested in teaching. Unfortunately, with state budgetary crises affecting both arts 

and education, support for school artist residencies has been reduced in many states. 

The results of a recent national survey of teaching artists30 show that professional artists are drawn to teaching as a way to pass on the enthusiasm for their art form to young 

students. Teaching artists see their roles as providing positive role models for students, 

partnering and team teaching with classroom teachers, and reaching hard-to-engage students. As a bonus, almost all indicate that their teaching has had a positive effect on their 

own art. Most (71%) reported teaching part-time, averaging one full day of teaching per 

week while almost all (96%) continue working as professional artists. Almost all (84%) said 

they would take on more teaching if work was available. 

Teaching artists are clearly a critical part of the solution for meeting the goal of expanding high quality arts experiences in underserved schools through extended placements. 

Long engagements allow teaching artists to fully integrate in schools and work in a systemic 

way. They have the time to develop curriculum, build relationships with students, and partner with art specialists and classroom teachers. To be effective in these complex and demanding roles, they can’t just “parachute in and then leave,” in the words of one stakeholder.

Expanding opportunities for teaching artists would require attention to preparation 

and ongoing support since teaching artists have not necessarily been trained in education 

methods. Some model programs have already developed extensive professional development programs for teaching artists that include mentoring and coaching along with formal 

course work and workshops. Interest has emerged in formal certification of teaching artists 

from some arts managers and universities, and there are currently certification programs in 

a few regions. For example, The Philadelphia Arts in Education Partnership, in collaboration with the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, has designed a research-based certificate 

29 Information provided to PCAH by Kiff Gallagher, Founder of Music National Service at 4/1/10 meeting.

30 Preliminary analyses from national survey of teaching artists and interviews with arts managers in study being conducted by Nick Rabkin of NORC, University of Chicago.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 43

THE OPPORTUNITY: POINT OF INFLECTION

program for teaching artists who work with classroom teachers and arts specialists in residency programs.

Building on Best Practices 

At this point in time when the need for transformation of education is great, we are fortunate that a critical mass of research evidence about arts outcomes and the effects of arts 

integration has accumulated; exemplary arts programs exist around the country as sources 

of best practices and practical advice; and experts are ready to support the scaling up of arts 

integration and other approaches.

In 2009, Harvard’s Project Zero researchers concluded a study documenting the elements necessary to ensure that arts experiences in and out of school are vital and excellent, 

ensuring that investments in arts education pay off for students and teachers. The result 

is a set of tools for examining quality, reflecting on critical decisions that affect quality, and 

analyzing the alignment among decision makers needed to sustain high quality programs 

(Seidel et al., 2009). 

Programs that can serve as partners and models have emerged from many disparate 

forces, including the efforts of forward-looking parents, nonprofit arts organizations, teaching artists, and school leaders. See Appendix B for a listing and description of examples of 

models. During the research phase, several organizations offered tools they had found helpful. Examples are the criteria that the National Guild for Community Arts Education uses 

to judge the strength of school-community partnerships and the performance criteria and 

processes used by Young Audiences to evaluate teaching artists.

The time is ripe, the building blocks are in place in the form of model programs, and the 

lessons have been learned in the areas necessary to scale up arts education. With a broad 

array of arts education models to build on, and the lessons from successful endeavors like 

Teach For America that have activated America’s best and brightest to dedicate themselves 

to educational service, we can see that now there is truly an opportunity to take advantage of 

the arts to achieve significant and lasting benefits for students, teachers, and schools. 
INTRODUCTION

“Our future as an innovative country 

depends on ensuring that everyone 

has access to the arts and to cultural 

opportunity . . . But the intersection 

of creativity and commerce is about 

more than economic stimulus, it’s 

also about who we are as people. 

The President and I want to ensure 

that all children have access to great 

works of art at museums. We want 

them to have access to great poets 

and musicians in theaters around the 

country, to arts education in their 

schools and community workshops.”

—Michelle Obama

44 Reinvesting in Arts Education

Photo by Ecole De Musique Dessaix-Baptiste
INTRODUCTION

 Reinvesting in Arts Education 45
INTRODUCTION

46 Reinvesting in Arts Education
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 47

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A Vision of Arts-Rich Schools

The PCAH has been continually impressed and inspired 

over the past year by the impact that arts education is having on students all over this country, and by the near-heroic efforts of many 

principals, school superintendents, community arts organizations, 

arts specialists, classroom teachers and teaching artists to enrich their schools with the 

arts, even in the face of tremendous challenges. As President Obama said in his campaign 

platform, now is the time to reinvest in arts education. Now more than ever we need solutions that keep students excited, motivated and in school, and we must provide them with 

the tools to succeed in the workforce after they graduate. 

PCAH members reviewed a range of arts education programs, consulted with policymakers and expert practitioners, and deliberated about the best ways to bring coherence and 

add value to the national patchwork of current arts education activities. PCAH recognized 

early on that advancing arts education would entail engaging many stakeholders who are 

invested in their own missions and priorities. Business, government, educators, and the arts 

community all have a role to place in expanding students’ access to quality arts education. 

Based on what we learned, the PCAH offers recommendations for actions targeted to different stakeholders. The five recommendations are intended to clarify the position of the arts 
48 Reinvesting in Arts Education

conclusion and recommendations

in education, focus efforts to expand arts education offerings, especially to under-served 

students and communities, and strengthen the evidence base for high quality arts education. 

The PCAH works from two baseline principles in making these recommendations. 

First, the arts are a vital part of the culture and life of this country, and all students deserve 

access to the arts in school as part of a complete education. Just as science and social studies are deemed essential subjects independent of their value to other learning outcomes, the 

arts merit a similar unambiguous place in the curriculum.31 

Second, decades of research and experience show that high quality arts education can 

play an important part in achieving a range of educational objectives. The arts can motivate and engage students; stimulate curiosity and foster creativity; teach 21st Century Skills 

such as problem solving and team work; and facilitate school-wide collaborations. While 

there is certainly room for additional information in these areas, there is no doubt that research about the value of arts education is positive and consistent. 

PCAH believes these recommendations are practical responses to the needs expressed by both arts and education leaders. While most don’t involve substantial new resources, or a drastic course correction from current approaches, they do require a high level 

of cooperation among leaders at federal and state and local levels towards a unified vision. 

Thus, specific recommendations support action from leaders in different roles, but acting 

with common purpose to ensure that more students, teachers, and schools have access to 

the benefits of arts education. 

Recommendations

1. Build collaborations among different approaches. 

There are several widely used approaches for providing arts education in the school curriculum, and each has its strong supporters in professional associations and advocacy groups.

•	 The standards-based approach (i.e., certified arts specialists teach a sequential arts curriculum in the subjects of visual arts, music, dance, and theater) is 

familiar to most educators. This approach is the cornerstone of traditional arts 

31 A major stride in this direction was made with the inclusion of arts as a core education subject in Goals 2000, 

Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, and again in the reauthorization of the act in 2002 known as the No Child 

Left Behind Act.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 49

conclusion and recommendations

education, and continues to be considered ideal by many. We acknowledge the 

work underway in many school systems to sustain comprehensive arts education programs staffed by highly qualified arts specialists. However, many school 

systems struggle to implement the approach with quality in the four arts disciplines given budget and time constraints as well as the lack of certified specialists in some fields. 

•	 Arts integration is a complementary approach that relies more on classroom 

teachers (often working in concert with teaching artists and/or arts specialists) 

who teach arts knowledge and skills in conjunction with the teaching of other 

subjects, such as math, science and reading. Some advocates fear that arts integration may be taken up by some school administrators as an inexpensive 

solution for providing arts education. Understandably, in those circumstances 

they are concerned that a focus on arts integration could diminish the sequential 

teaching of arts skills, erode the quality of arts instruction, and reduce the place 

of art specialists. 

•	 Teaching artists programs typically involve working artists from different disciplines who teach part-time in schools, often on a short-term or project basis. 

Teaching artists can bring real world experience and community connections to 

their instruction, serve as role models for students, and fill a need for schools that 

don’t have the resources for full-time arts specialists in all disciplines. However, 

short term status and uneven preparation for working with students and teachers can hamper their effectiveness. 

We urge the leaders of professional associations to work with federal and state agencies 

to support connections among the different approaches to arts education. The PCAH believes that collaborations among national leadership organizations should focus on the goal 

of expanding the number of creative, arts-rich schools that use different arts delivery approaches in tandem, moving beyond internal debates about preferred modes of delivery in 

order to place more emphasis on issues of equitable access.32 In practice, of course, schools 

32 We reached this conclusion at about the same time as a forum co-hosted by Grantmakers in the Arts and Grantmakers for Education raised similar issues including a discussion about “creating a new level of common cause beyond the 

internal fractures in the arts education community” (McCann, 2010).
50 Reinvesting in Arts Education

conclusion and recommendations

employ different combinations of arts specialists, arts integration, and teaching artists to 

create hybrid approaches, which have emerged through compromises based on funding opportunities and available resources and personnel. However, too often advocates focus on 

the method of delivery of arts instruction, rather than the quality of that instruction and the 

flexibility to adapt to the needs of the community. This hinders the effectiveness of those 

advocates, and the overarching cause of getting more arts into schools. We recommend efforts that demonstrate how teams of classroom teachers, arts specialists and teaching artists can work together on building curricula, delivering instruction, and learning from each 

other. This could include national and state leadership activities for dissemination of information, team training opportunities, and funding of demonstration models. We believe 

that collaborative efforts will increase the quality of arts instruction across the board, and 

elevate the position of the arts in the eyes of education stakeholders, policy makers and local 

school officials. 

2. Develop the field of arts integration. 

Many individuals cited the promise of the arts integration approach; we learned about 

model arts integration programs and efforts to train arts specialists and classroom teachers 

in arts integration methods. As arts integration has not received as much concerted attention as standards-based approaches, the field needs development and support to realize its 

full promise. We agree that the arts will have a more secure place in the curriculum when 

teachers experience firsthand the deepening of learning in their subjects that comes from 

incorporating arts teaching strategies, and working in collaboration with arts specialists 

and teaching artists.

No one agency or professional association “owns” arts integration, so the potential 

for development, including evaluation and codification of quality practices, is wide open. 

Further development of the field of arts integration will depend on initiatives undertaken 

by institutions of higher education (for both pre-service and in-service education), professional development providers (including state arts and education agencies, nonprofit arts 

organizations), and state agencies and private funders providing targeted support.

Most programs are largely focused on serving their own communities; the programs 

vary in many ways, including the roles taken by specialists and artists, the options for and 
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 51

conclusion and recommendations

intensity of student involvement, and the availability of evidence of effectiveness. PCAH 

sees a role for a national organization to facilitate one or more communities of practice 

among model arts integration programs to identify best practices in arts integration, organize curriculum units, bring together training approaches, and create a common frame for 

collecting evaluation results. Model programs might also become test sites for development 

and piloting of innovations, e.g., for arts integration training, teaching artist certification, 

or development of integrated curriculum units. Finally, for purposes of dissemination and 

replication, it would be useful for a national organization to assume responsibility for creating and maintaining a centralized source of independent information about arts integration 

programs and their features, including evidence of effectiveness.

PCAH sees great value in expanding both pre-service training in the arts and professional development opportunities in arts integration for arts specialists, and classroom 

teachers, including via distance learning. Since arts integration is intellectually and pedagogically demanding, arts specialists would benefit by ongoing support, including easy access to lessons, tools, expert advice, and networking with colleagues as well as specialized 

training. An important role for professional advocacy groups is the strengthening of certification requirements to include training in arts integration during pre-service education.

3. Expand in-school opportunities for teaching artists. 

During the research phase, we learned about effective approaches for bringing the specialized skills and the career experiences of working artists into schools to motivate students’ 

interests. We were impressed by working artists’ interest in service opportunities that enable them to use their talents to improve education and engage young people. By employing teaching artists, schools can expand access and involve more students, but that involvement must be sustained and supported (in contrast to short term residencies or events). 

The PCAH sees great opportunity in increasing support and professional development to 

allow more schools to employ more teaching artists for a multi-year service commitment, 

similar to the “Artist Corps” concept articulated in President Obama’s campaign platform. 

We encourage national stakeholders and federal, state and local funders to explore this possibility further.

If they are to take on longer term and more substantive roles, teaching artists will be 
52 Reinvesting in Arts Education

conclusion and recommendations

expected to meet standards of effectiveness similar to other teachers. They will require additional training, including training in pedagogy, arts integration, curriculum standards, 

child development, planning and assessment, classroom management techniques, and collaboration with classroom teachers. As indicated above, the PCAH recognizes the value 

of teaching artists working collaboratively with art specialists and classroom teachers to 

maximize students’ in-depth engagement with the arts. While many state arts agencies 

currently offer some form of orientation for teaching artists who are engaged in short term 

residencies, there may be value and efficiency in creating a more centralized and streamlined training approach, using distance learning mechanisms for providing training in particular arts fields. Schools and teaching artists may be interested in a form of certification 

appropriate to their roles. Regional and state arts agencies are valuable leadership groups to 

partner in the expansion and refinement of training for teaching artists. 

4. Utilize federal and state policies to reinforce the 

place of arts in K-12 education.

PCAH believes that local school decision makers need to hear clear, direct and focused 

statements from the leaders of federal and state education agencies about how the arts fit 

within current priorities (and states need similar guidance from federal education leaders). 

Educators look to federal and state governments to communicate expectations, set standards and policies, showcase excellence, and demonstrate how the arts can be used to address federal and state education requirements for a complete education appropriate for all 

children. They need policy guidance and more explicit examples of the place of the arts in 

the initiatives designed to increase the rigor of curriculum, strengthen teacher quality, and 

improve low-performing schools. The achievements and outcomes of arts-rich schools, 

both those incorporating the arts and those focusing on the arts through a magnet or other 

emphasis, should be folded into the larger dialogue of successful school reform strategies. It 

is necessary for federal and state governments to move beyond merely “allowing” the arts to 

be included as expenditures in a comprehensive education.

Teachers need information about how to address the new Common Core standards 

through the arts, similar to the way that the Partnership for 21st Century Skills Arts Map 

illustrates how to use the arts to develop critical thinking and problem solving, communica-
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 53

conclusion and recommendations

tion, collaboration, and creativity and innovation. Federal and state programs that recognize excellence and improvement, such as the Blue Ribbon Schools program, could highlight award-winning schools that incorporate the arts. The U.S. Department of Education’s 

Institute for Education Sciences might create a panel to recommend specific practices in 

arts teaching based on research syntheses as it has done in mathematics, literacy, behavior, 

and other areas. 

5. Widen the focus of evidence gathering about arts education. 

There has been increasing emphasis and rigor applied to establishing linkages between arts 

education and student achievement in the last decade, primarily filtered through the lens of 

reading and math test scores. We are pleased that this research has yielded promising educational outcomes, and we support additional resources and effort in this area. However, 

we see a tremendous opportunity for measuring other significant educational outcomes in 

connection with arts education. For example, it is especially important to have credible evidence about the relationship between participation in arts education and creativity. Given 

the importance of 21st Century Skills to educators and policymakers, we believe it is critical 

to know more about how and under what circumstances arts education can develop students’ divergent thinking skills. It is generally accepted that arts education has the potential 

to develop students’ creativity, but more definitive information is needed along with measurement methods that can be replicated by local school districts. 

There is also a need for more solid information about the impact of arts education on 

increasing student engagement in school and persistence in learning. This effect can be 

reflected in indicators such as student attendance, attrition, behavioral problem reporting 

and other data points. There is evidence that participation in arts education has a positive 

effect on engagement, typically gathered through teacher reports and student self-reports. 

Objective information about the motivational effects of arts education is necessary in order 

to illuminate theories about why participation in the arts seems to be positively associated 

with overall higher student achievement. 

Furthermore, teachers and administrators need tools to support improvement in arts 

programs and track related outcomes. State and regional agencies can help schools identify 

and document the benefits of arts experiences in a realistic and appropriate manner, includ-
54 Reinvesting in Arts Education

conclusion and recommendations

ing identifying which benefits (e.g., student engagement and motivation, content learning, 

teacher efficacy, teacher collaboration, and so forth) are of greatest interest for a particular 

arts education intervention. Arts learning assessments are also important tools here. Proficiency in arts competencies is difficult to measure accurately and consistently on a large 

scale, but without measurement it is difficult for teachers to gauge students’ progress and 

for researchers to substantiate the learning benefits of the arts. With support from the federal government, test developers are designing a new generation of assessment tools. We 

urge attention to measuring arts competencies at the school and classroom level along with 

other types of performance. 

Finally, policymakers are often surprised that it is currently very difficult to get a national picture of student access to and participation in arts education. The existing data 

about the availability of arts education in schools, states or districts largely comes through 

voluntary efforts on the part of states or individual researchers. The federal government 

should help the arts education field and policymakers make informed arguments and decisions regarding impact and equitable access. This requires policies that support ongoing 

data gathering about available opportunities, including teacher quality, resources, and facilities at the local and state level. Accountability for arts education opportunities by states 

and districts, even without major policy or funding changes, would be game-changing in the 

ability of stakeholders to advocate for the arts and to assess their effectiveness. 

PCAH recommends that federal and private funders support the gathering of this kind 

of evidence, as well as development of tools and templates for measuring these metrics. 

Even though data gathering can be resource intensive and complicated, improvements in 

the ability to verify and track these outcomes would be very helpful in both understanding 

and advancing the potential of the arts to address many of today’s educational challenges. 

Summary

The PCAH envisions schools in cities and towns across our nation that are alive with the 

energy of creative thinking and fresh ideas, full of art, music and movement. All of the research points to the success of schools that are “arts-rich” –– in which students who may 

have fallen by the wayside find themselves re-engaged in learning when their enthusiasm 

for film, design, theater or even hip-hop is tapped into by their teachers. More advanced 
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 55

conclusion and recommendations

students also reap rewards in this environment, demonstrating accelerated learning and 

sustained levels of motivation. 

The PCAH’s goal is to support a climate in American schools where all students are 

engaged, where they come to school and to class eager to learn, where they speak and write 

and solve problems with self-confidence and discipline, and where their innate gifts of 

creativity and innovation are nurtured and encouraged. We would like to see classrooms 

where teachers develop new ways of working with students and collaborating with their 

colleagues to motivate the best performance from their classes. We want to create schools 

where every student feels he or she is good at something and where all teachers feel they 

have the tools they need to reach their students. As we have seen in our travels across the 

country, schools like these generate productive students, strong teachers, and an engaged 

community. PCAH stands ready to partner with public agencies and the private sector to 

further develop and implement the recommendations above and to increase access for all 

students to these types of high quality educational experiences.
56 Reinvesting in Arts Education
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 57

Appendix A

Selected Studies about the Benefits of Arts Education

During the research phase, PCAH identified a number of evaluations and research studies 

that describe the outcomes of arts training and arts integration initiatives. Below are 

examples of studies and compilations of studies (which are listed first) that are frequently 

cited as support for the value of arts education. This is by no means intended as a complete 

or exhaustive list but illustrates the range of information available and the types of 

outcomes that studies track.

Source Summary

Fiske, E. (Ed.). (1999). 

Champions of change: the 

impact of the arts on learning.

Washington, DC: The Arts 

Education Partnership and the 

President’s Committee on Arts 

and Humanities

A compilation of seven studies that show correlations between high 

levels of arts participation and higher grades and test scores in math 

and reading. Studies also show engagement of students who are not 

otherwise interested in school and how the arts forge connections 

among students through project-based learning and collaborations. 

Deasy, R.J. (Ed.). (2002).

Critical links: Learning in the 

arts and student achievement 

and social development. 

Washington, DC: The Arts 

Education Partnership

A compendium of 62 studies representative of the best current 

examples. The collection focuses on the cognitive capacities that are 

developed by learning in the arts such as thinking skills and problem 

solving as well as transfer of arts skills to reading and mathematics. 

Studies also tracked changes in motivation to attend school and 

growth in student self-confidence. Taken together the studies 

demonstrate 65 core relationships between arts and other outcomes 

of interest to educators. 

McCarthy, K.F. et al. (2004). 

Gifts of the muse: Reframing 

the debate about the benefits 

of the arts. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND 

This RAND report examines the evidence for the full range of 

arts’ private and public benefits and concludes that the national 

discussion of these benefits should place far more emphasis on the 

“intrinsic” pleasures of the arts that benefit not only individuals, 

but the public good as well. Benefits of interest to educators include 

focused attention, capacity for empathy, cognitive growth, social 

bonds, and expression of communal meaning.

Stevenson, L.M. & Deasy, R.J. 

(2005). Third space: When 

learning matters. Washington, 

DC: Arts Education 

Partnership

Findings from case studies of schools that serve at-risk students 

and use arts-integrated instruction describe how schools motivate 

improvements in reading, writing, and speaking and describe 

the positive inclusive environment created in the school by arts 

integration. 

Photo by Keelan Wackman
58 Reinvesting in Arts Education

APPENDICES

Source Summary

Ruppert, S. (2006). Critical 

evidence: How the arts benefit 

student achievement.

Washington, DC: National 

Assembly of State Arts 

Agencies and the Arts 

Education Partnership

A summary of evidence related to the links between arts and subject 

area skills along with information about the place of arts within the 

No Child Left Behind legislation. Focuses on outcomes of academic 

performance and social skills.

Burnaford, G. et al. (2007). 

Arts integration frameworks, 

research, and practice: A 

literature review. Washington, 

DC: Arts Education 

Partnership

A description of the research literature related to arts integration 

written between 1995 and 2007. The book covers all aspects of arts 

integration and includes a chapter on research findings. Helpful 

appendices provide an inventory of arts-related academic and social 

outcomes in subcategories from Critical Links and an inventory of 

studies by discipline (e.g., visual arts, dance) within the categories of 

cognition and motivation.

Seidel, S. et al. (2009). 

The qualities of quality: 

Understanding excellence in 

arts education. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard Graduate School 

of Education

Harvard Project Zero researchers explore the challenges of 

achieving and sustaining quality arts learning. The report includes 

a discussion of seven purposes of arts education, including 

development of habits of mind and dispositions, aesthetic 

awareness, engagement with civic issues, and self-development 

and expression. The report includes a set of tools that can assist 

in making decisions about achieving and sustaining quality arts 

education.

Asbury, C. & Rich, B. (Eds.) 

(2008). Learning, arts and the 

brain: The Dana Consortium 

report on arts and cognition. 

New York: Dana Press

The Dana Foundation supported neuroscientists from seven 

universities to conduct studies to unpack the connections between 

arts training and learning. The cognitive neuroscientists who 

participated in the study found a “tight correlation” between 

exposure to the arts and improved skills in several areas of cognition 

and attention for learning. 

Winner, E. & Hetland, L. 

(2000). The arts and academic 

achievement: What the 

evidence shows. Journal of 

Aesthetic Education, 34

A review of fifty years of studies connecting arts to academic 

improvement, including many unpublished papers. The authors 

calculated effect sizes and conducted a number of meta-analyses. 

The review identified a small number of studies that found reliable 

causal relationships between arts study and specific learning 

outcomes. Many studies were correlational, of course, and the 

researchers advocated for additional research and theory building 

to strengthen the field.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 59

APPENDICES

Catterall, J.S., Chapleau, 

R. & Iwanaga, J. (1999). 

Involvement in the arts and 

success in secondary school.

Included in Champions of 

Change (see above)

Using the National Educational Longitudinal Survey database 

of 25,000 students, UCLA researchers found a correlation 

between students with high arts involvement and performance on 

standardized tests. Students who were more involved than others in 

the arts watched less TV, were less likely to be bored in school and 

more likely to participate in community service. Students with high 

involvement in the arts across the socio-economic strata performed 

better in school and stayed in school longer than students with low 

involvement.

Catterall, J.S., & Waldorf, 

L. (1999). Chicago Arts 

Partnerships in Education: 

Summary evaluation. Included 

in Champions of Change (see 

above)

Researchers studied the impact of CAPE (Chicago Arts 

Partnerships in Education) over a six year period, reviewing test 

scores as well as using surveys of students and teachers. Student 

achievement data over the years favored the CAPE schools 

compared to other Chicago public schools. CAPE schools outscored 

the other schools on over fifty comparisons. 

Noblit et al. (2009). Creating 

and sustaining arts-based 

school reform: The A+ schools 

program. New York: Routledge

Nelson, C.A. (2001). The arts 

and education reform: Lessons 

from a 4-year pilot of the A+ 

schools program. Greensboro, 

NC: Thomas S. Kenan 

Institute for the Arts

There are many studies that have been conducted about the A+ 

school experience, most of them by the team of Noblit, Wilson 

and Corbett. Descriptive studies of implementation, partnership, 

networking, and professional development have been conducted 

along with studies of student, teacher, school, and community 

effects. Studies have identified the essential ingredients of A+ 

schools that produce outcomes and documented the effectiveness 

of A+ as a school reform model, especially in schools where there are 

substantial numbers of economically disadvantaged students. 

Heath, S. B, Soep, E., & Roach, 

A. (1998). Living the arts 

through language-learning: A 

report on community-based 

organizations. Washington, 

DC: Americans for the Arts 

2(7)

Anthropologist Heath conducted a ten-year study in 120 

community-based organizations to find out what students were 

doing in their non-school hours and determine what difference 

that time might make in student outcomes. By year seven of the 

study, Heath had discovered that children engaged in the arts were 

showing positive outcomes and she took a deeper look, finding 

that students in arts programs significantly benefitted in terms of 

motivation, persistence, critical analysis, and planning. 

Source Summary
60 Reinvesting in Arts Education

APPENDICES

Appendix B

Programs that Connect Artists to Schools

In our research we discovered many examples of initiatives designed to bring arts 

into the schools; those programs are often based in state arts agencies and community 

organizations and often the product of alliances among many partners. We are acutely 

aware that there are many strong programs across the country, including many we 

spoke with, that are not included in the list below. We have not attempted to develop an 

exhaustive list but provide representative examples of the variety of configurations and 

services currently in use.

Program Summary of Features

Alliance for Arts 

Learning Leadership

Alameda County, CA

(Berkeley area)

The Alliance is a collaborative network of the County Office of Education, 

the Alameda County Arts Commission, eighteen Alameda County school 

districts, their administrators, teachers and arts specialists, community arts 

partners, representatives from higher education, and parents. The Alliance 

provides professional development in the form of certification courses that 

enable teachers and teaching artists to become arts integration specialists 

and provides mentoring and coaching to schools as well as organizing them 

into networks to support implementation. 

A+ Schools Program

North Carolina (based 

at SERVE and state arts 

agency), Oklahoma (at 

University of Central 

Oklahoma), Arkansas

The A+ Schools Program is a whole school reform model that views the arts 

as fundamental to how teachers teach and students learn in all subjects. 

A+ schools combine interdisciplinary teaching, experiential learning, 

and daily arts instruction. Students have regular opportunities to learn 

and apply the arts and technology as part of instruction and assessment. 

The arts are taught daily to every child: drama, dance, music and visual 

arts at least once each week. A major aspect of the program is training for 

teachers and teaching artists and participation in collaborative networks 

where administrators and teachers are mentored by a statewide network 

of peer professionals. Recent A+ conferences have focused on math, 

multiple intelligences, and art, and inspiring students to write through arts 

experiences. 

Artist Corps 

Tennessee

Tennessee (based at state 

arts agency)

Artist Corps Tennessee is a training program for teaching artists that

integrates arts learning objectives with service learning objectives. Artist 

residency projects focus on identifiable needs within the community, 

including social justice issues. The Tennessee Arts Commission has 

developed guidance for integrating the arts with service learning so that 

projects focus on developing citizenship, problem-solving, creativity, and 

leadership skills.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 61

APPENDICES

Program Summary of Features

Arts Corps

King County, WA

(Seattle area)

Arts Corps is an arts education organization offering classes in diverse art 

forms to young people in grades K-12, placing professional teaching artists in 

school and after-school sites providing instruction in art courses, including 

digital media and poetry/spoken word. The Corps serves 2,500 students at 

over 35 program partner sites a year and has worked to elevate the status of 

arts education as a fundamental learning experience in and out of the school 

day. Three out of four partner sites serve a population in which the majority 

of students qualify for free and reduced price lunch.

Arts Education in 

Maryland Schools 

Alliance (AEMS) 

Maryland

AEMS’ mission is to build support for high-quality, systemic arts education—

dance, music, theatre and visual arts—for all Maryland schoolchildren. 

AEMS has focused on arts integration, developing a sequence of training 

in arts integration for administrators and teachers, hosting convenings, 

providing outreach, and working on statewide policies.

Arts at Large 

Milwaukee, WI

Arts @ Large works with schools to create project teams comprised of 

teachers representing all grade levels and a variety of academic subjects. 

Teams identify academic learning priorities. Arts @ Large helps teams forge 

sustainable partnerships with higher education, artists, arts organizations 

and community organizations. Teachers participate in workshops, inservice, and higher education courses to acquire skills in proven arts 

integration methods and create arts integrated curricula. 

Big Thought

Dallas, TX

Big Thought’s mission is to make imagination a part of everyday learning. 

The organization coordinates partnerships between schools and cultural 

organizations to identify and fill existing program gaps in the city. Through 

these partnerships, their Thriving Minds program offers free and low-cost 

after-school and neighborhood-based enrichment programs in music, dance, 

visual and performing arts, science, culinary arts, technology and more. 

They also conduct research and assessment of arts education outcomes. 

Center for Arts 

Education of New 

York (CAE)

New York City.

CAE provides a wide range of arts education support for New York City 

schools, blending work designed to enhance teaching and learning in the arts 

with advocacy and parent and public engagement. CAE trains classroom 

teachers in arts integration; trains teaching artists to work in schools; and 

offers specialized training for principals to enable them to implement 

and sustain arts education programming. CAE provides teaching artists 

residencies in the traditional arts disciplines as well as media arts. Through 

the School Arts Support Initiative (SASI), CAE works with NYC middle 

schools that have little or no arts education to transform them into arts-rich 

schools, including professional development and formation and support of 

school leadership teams.

Center for Creative 

Education (CCE)

Palm Beach County, FL

CCE provides training in arts integration, multiple intelligences theory, 

and curriculum mapping for teachers and administrators. CCE’s Project 

LEAP (Learning Enriched through Arts Partnerships) is a program that 

utilizes teacher/artist collaboration and team teaching. Artists and teachers 

collaborate on lesson plans. The Center directs most of its programming to 

at-risk children in low-socio economic and minority neighborhoods K-12 

grade.
62 Reinvesting in Arts Education

APPENDICES

Program Summary of Features

Chicago Arts 

Partnerships in 

Schools (CAPE)

Chicago, IL

CAPE develops long term partnerships between teachers and artists/arts 

organizations and offers a variety of services including partnering and 

training for arts integration, development of curriculum, and providing 

teaching artists for residencies.

COMPAS

Minnesota (serves 

full state, based in 

Minneapolis-St. Paul)

With 55 years of arts programming and four decades of arts education, 

COMPAS is a resource for artist residencies, performances, workshops, 

professional development, and community-building through the arts. 

COMPAS has arts education partnerships; community programs in youth 

employment, rural arts, senior programming and healthcare; and grantmaking initiatives. 

Higher Order 

Thinking (HOT) 

Schools

Connecticut (based in 

state arts agency) 

In HOT schools, the arts are rigorous academic subjects, each with its own 

sequential curriculum that conveys knowledge not learned through other 

academic disciplines. HOT schools integrate the arts across disciplines, 

creating arts-rich environments that motivate students to make connections 

between and among subject areas and ideas. HOT schools cultivate a 

democratic school culture in which all members of the school community 

participate.

The John F. Kennedy 

Center for the 

Performing Arts

Washington, DC

The Kennedy Center offers a variety of arts education programs including 

Changing Education through the Arts (CETA) which provides professional 

learning in the arts for teachers, teaching artists and school administrators 

in the DC metropolitan area. These development programs are designed 

to teach educators about the arts and about arts integration techniques, as 

well as including mentoring and co-teaching by expert teaching artists in 

the classroom. Programs developed through CETA are shared nationally 

through the Kennedy Center’s Partners in Education program.

Lincoln Center 

Institute for the Arts 

in Education (LCI)

New York City

LCI offers a range of activities to connect teachers and students with 

the cultural resources of New York City, cultivating the imagination and 

building aesthetic understanding. The well-known Lincoln Center Institute 

International Educator Workshop provides indepth training for teachers 

each summer. LCI works with school-based teams of educators in the New 

York metropolitan area; supports include professional development, work 

with teaching artists, and visits to performance venues and museums.

Music National 

Service

San Francisco, CA

MNS launched MusiciansCorps as a national pilot program in five cities, 

Seattle, Oakland, San Francisco, Chicago and New Orleans, designed to 

bring music into high needs school and community settings. Musicians 

were recruited to commit to a year of service doing transformative work 

with youth, schools and communities through music instruction and 

civic engagement. The focus is on developing 21st Century skills and 

strengthening communities through music. The program is currently 

focusing on efforts in California.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 63

APPENDICES

Program Summary of Features

Project AIM 

Chicago and Evanston, IL

Columbia College’s Center for Community Arts Partnerships hosts the Arts 

Integration Mentorship Project (Project AIM) which focuses on parallels 

between arts and literacy learning. It does this by partnering teaching artists 

from Columbia College and community-based arts organizations with public 

school teachers in the Chicago area. Artists and teachers learn how to jointly 

create arts integrated curriculum that promotes reading and writing through 

the arts and now mathematics as well.

P.S. ARTS

Los Angeles, CA

(working throughout 

Southern/Central CA)

P.S. ARTS recruits, hires, underwrites, and trains professional artists to 

develop curriculum and teach classes during the regular school day. The 

organization also provides arts-related workshops to classroom teachers 

to integrate creative expression and the arts into core academic subjects. 

Current methods include a conservatory model offering one to two 

traditional arts disciplines per school with each taught by a professional 

artist with classroom experience for the full school year. P.S. ARTS also 

provides an innovative Integrated Arts Model (I AM), which furnishes every 

classroom in a school with three teaching artists, each specializing in a 

different artistic discipline, who rotate during the course of the school year.

Silk Road 

CONNECT

New York City

Silk Road CONNECT is a multidisciplinary initiative for middle school 

students in underserved communities throughout New York City in a two 

year pilot. The program is based on the cultural, economic, and technological 

exchange that connected East Asia to the Mediterranean. Students engage 

with professional artists as they work toward a culminating performance 

with Yo-Yo Ma and members of the Silk Road Ensemble. More broadly, the 

Silk Road project makes available a curriculum for middle and secondary 

school students that includes ancillary media materials and workshops for 

young musicians.

STUDIO in a School

New York City

STUDIO in a School is a well-established program that serves the New York 

City schools. The program has various components including the LongTerm option which places studio artists in residency in a school 4 days per 

week, gradually decreasing the time over a five year period to 2 or 3 days per 

week. Classroom teachers participate in studio classes with their students, 

becoming familiar with art materials, tools, and techniques. Over time the 

classroom teacher conducts more of the lessons and extends art learning into 

other curriculum areas. The school also receives professional development 

workshops for teachers and quality art materials in exchange for providing 

space and paraprofessional support.

Urban Gateways

Chicago, IL

Urban Gateways offers custom-designed programming in the literary, 

performing, media and visual arts that range from one-time exposure 

opportunities to full immersion “Arts-Wired Schools.” An Arts-Wired 

School offers the following core programs: artist-in-residence programs, 

touring and performances, professional development, and parent/family and 

community workshops. 
64 Reinvesting in Arts Education

APPENDICES

Program Summary of Features

Young Audiences 

Arts for Learning branches 

in 24 states

Young Audiences presents nearly 100,000 arts-in-education programs in 

music, theater, visual and design arts, dance, and the literary arts. These 

programs include performance-demonstrations, workshops, residencies, 

and professional development services for teachers. Works with 4,600 

professional teaching artists and produces programs in 7,500 schools 

annually.
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 65

APPENDICES

Appendix C

Selected Federal and Other National Programs

The PCAH reviewed the history and features of several national large-scale service 

initiatives to understand variations and options in recruitment and selection of volunteers; 

incentives and benefits; training and support; terms of service; organizational structure; 

and funding levels.

Program Summary of Features

Comprehensive 

Employment and 

Training Act (CETA)

CETA was a program of the Labor Department created in 1973 to address 

high unemployment with full-time jobs ranging from 12-24 months and 

summer jobs for youth. CETA provided job training for the unemployed, 

targeting low-income, long-time unemployed and special populations.

CETA operated via a decentralized approach; local public agencies served 

as prime sponsors. Sponsors could accept proposals and fund a wide range 

of types of organizations to create jobs. CETA was not specifically an arts 

program; however, cultural enrichment became a category of funding early 

on. Once the first jobs for artists were approved by a sponsor, the use of CETA 

funds to employ artists spread rapidly. In the first three years of the program, 

200 prime sponsors created 7,500 arts jobs with $75 million funding.

Annually, total funding ranged from $2.9-$9.5 billion. In its peak year, CETA 

created about 725,000 jobs. The program ended in 1981.

Works Progress 

Administration 

(WPA)

Federal Project Number 

One arts-related 

components included:

Federal Writers Project; 

Federal Arts Project; 

Federal Theater Project; 

Federal Music Project; 

Historical Records Survey

The WPA was the largest New Deal agency, operating from 1935-1943, and 

carrying out public works projects and arts-related projects. Federal Project 

Number One focused on art production, e.g., public art, state guidebooks, 

theatre, music, and so forth. The project included art education and the 

establishment of 100 community art centers in 22 states; over two million 

students attended WPA art classes. Special emphasis was placed on 

preserving and preserving minority cultural forms and histories.

WPA was a combination of centralization and decentralization; each 

program component defined its own national direction. Administration was 

shared by regional, state, and local WPA offices staffed by federal employees 

(e.g., 31 states and NYC and federal theater units; each state had panel of 

editors overseeing writers).

WPA’s intent was to provide jobs and income for the unemployed, following 

the basic concept that jobs should serve the public good and match workers’ 

skills to conserve their skills and self-esteem. Secondary goals were to 

provide art for public buildings. The program included some skills training. 

Artists worked 30 hours per week or less at the prevailing wage rate in the 

local area (leading to considerable variation across the nation). Artists were 

required to meet professional standards and were selected by panel of peers 

in some programs.

The total of WPA funding was $11.4 billion; arts programs represented about 

7% of the total. At its peak, WPA employed 3.3 million (of estimated 3.55 

million eligible), including 40,000 artists.
66 Reinvesting in Arts Education

APPENDICES

Peace Corps The Peace Corps, initiated in 1961, operates as an independent federal 

agency providing service opportunities for skilled workers to meet the needs 

of participating countries and strengthening cross-cultural understanding. 

Volunteers work with governmental and private agencies through 

agreements with host countries. Since inception, Peace Corps has had about 

200,000 volunteers.

Peace Corps operates a centralized recruitment and selection of volunteers 

for two year terms of service. Volunteers then receive intense training in 

language, culture, technical skills, health/ safety conducted in the assigned 

country. The selection process is competitive; positions require specific 

educational and technical skills. Volunteers receive living allowance, a 

transition grant, deferment of some types of student loans, and medical 

benefits. 

There are currently 7,700 volunteers in 76 countries; the FY2009 budget 

was $372.6 million.

Americorps

includes:

AmeriCorps State and 

National, AmeriCorps 

VISTA, and AmeriCorps 

NCCC (National Civilian 

Community Corps)

AmeriCorps was launched with the Corporation for National and 

Community Service Act 1993 which incorporated earlier programs. 

The network of local and national organizations includes two programs 

managed at the national level (VISTA; NCCC). AmeriCorps provides teambased service opportunities to meet critical community needs in U.S. and 

develop community leaders. Volunteers work in education, youth programs, 

and community revitalization.

National grants are made to public agencies, non-profit organizations, and 

IHEs. Governor-appointed State Service Commissions provide grants to 

non-government and government entities that sponsor service programs. 

Organizations that receive grants are responsible for recruiting, selecting, 

and supervising AmeriCorps members.

Volunteers serve terms of 10-12 months which can be either full or part 

time and receive modest salaries. Some receive living allowance; some 

assignments include housing. Education awards ($4,725 for full time) 

are matched by many institutions. Annually about 75,000 participants 

volunteer (there have been more than 400,000 volunteers since inception).

The FY10 budget for State and National AmeriCorps was $372 million, 

VISTA $99 million, NCCC $29 million. 

Program Summary of Features
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 67

APPENDICES

Teach for America 

(TFA)

Included as a nonprofit 

program that receives 

some federal funding

TFA, founded in 1990, provides teachers for PreK-12 low-income schools 

in high-need subjects. The goal is improving student achievement and also 

encouraging alumni to become leaders engaged in expanding educational 

opportunities. TFA recruits recent top college graduates who commit 

two years to teach; selection is highly competitive. TFA uses a centralized 

application, selection, and placement process. Placement takes into account 

state and district requirements, e.g. course credits, although they are not 

required to hold teacher certification at outset.

Teachers participate in intensive summer preparation and ongoing 

coursework leading to certification. Regional/local TFA program directors 

oversee a cadre of teachers and provide ongoing support and professional 

development. TFA teachers receive a salary and benefits equivalent to 

teachers in schools where they are placed plus an education stipend.

TFA now annually supports over 7,000 teachers in 1,000 schools in 26 urban 

and rural regions across the country with about 17,000 alumni. In FY09 

TFA received $20 million in federal funding (c. 14% of TFA budget); other 

sources of funding include foundations, corporations, individuals, state and 

local funders. 

Program Summary of Features
68 Reinvesting in Arts Education

APPENDICES

Appendix D

Bibliography

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2007). The high cost of high school dropouts: What the nation pays for 

inadequate high schools. [Issue Brief ]. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.all4ed.org/files/

archive/publications/HighCost.pdf

Americans for the Arts. (2003). YouthARTS toolkit. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.

artsusa.org/youtharts/download.asp 

Anne Arundel County Public Schools. (2010). ExCLAIMS! Excellence via cloud learning for arts 

integration in Maryland Schools. (AACPS) (I3) grant. Annapolis Maryland: Author

Arts Education Partnership. (2004). The arts and education: New opportunities for research. Washington, 

DC: Author.

Arts Education Partnership. (2007-2008). Arts education state policy database. Washington, DC: Author. 

Retrieved from http://www.aep-arts.org/database

Arts Education Research Initiative. (2009). K–12 arts education, every student, every school, every year: a 

report on arts education in Washington. Olympia, WA: Washington State Arts Commission 

Asbury, C., & Rich, B. (Eds.). (2008). Learning, arts and the brain: The Dana Consortium report on arts and 

cognition. New York: Dana Press

Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J.M., Moore, L.A., & Fox, J. H. (2010). Building a grad nation: Progress and 

challenge in ending the high school dropout epidemic. Washington, DC: America’s Promise Alliance

Barry, N. (2010). Oklahoma A+ Schools: What the research tells us 2002-2007: Edmond, OK: Oklahoma A+ 

Schools, University of Central Oklahoma. Retrieved from http://www.aplusok.org/history/reports/

Bodilly, Susan J. (2008). Revitalizing arts education through community-wide coordination. Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND

Bransom, J., Brown, A., Denson, K., Hoitsma, L., Pinto, Y. Wolf, D. P. & Wolf, T. (2010). Creative learning: 

People and pathways. Dallas: Big Thought

Bridgeland, J.M., Dilulio, JJ., & Morison, K.B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school 

dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises 

Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2010, July 10). The creativity crisis. Newsweek online. Retrieved from http://

www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html

Brown, S., Campbell-Zopf, M., Hooper, J., Marshall, D., & McLaughlin, B. (n.d.). Research-based 

communication tool kit. Washington, DC: The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. Retrieved from 

http://www.nasaa-arts.org/Research/Key-Topics/Arts-Education/Research*Based-CommunicationToolkit.php

Burnaford, G. et al. (2007). Arts integration frameworks, research & practice: A literature review. 

Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.aep-arts.org/files/publications/

arts_integration_book_final.pdf
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 69

APPENDICES

Casner-Lotto, J., & Benner, M.W. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the 

basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. New York, NY: The 

Conference Board, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and 

the Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from http://p21.org/documents/FINAL_

REPORT_PDF09-29-06.pdf

Catterall, J.S. (n.d.). Involvement in the arts and success in secondary school. Americans for the 

Arts Monographs 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.americansforthearts.org/NAPD/files/9393/

Involvement%20in%20the%20Arts%20and%20Success%20in%20Secondary%20School%20

%28%2798%29.pdf

Catterall, J.S., Chapleau, R., & Iwanaga, J. (1999). Involvement in the arts and human development: 

General involvement and intensive involvement in music and theater arts. In E.B. Fiske (Ed.), Champions 

of change: the impact of the arts on learning. (pp. 1-18).Washington, DC: The Arts Education Partnership 

and the President’s Committee on Arts and Humanities. Retrieved from http://www.aep-arts.org/files/

publications/ChampsReport.pdf

Catterall, J.S., & Waldorf, L. (1999). Chicago arts partnerships in education: Summary evaluation. In E. B. 

Fiske (Ed.), Champions of change: the impact of the arts on learning. (pp. 47-62).Washington, DC: The Arts 

Education Partnership and the President’s Committee on Arts and Humanities. Retrieved from http://

www.aep-arts.org/files/publications/ChampsReport.pdf

Catterall, J.S. (2009). Doing well and doing good by doing art: The effects of education in the visual and 

performing arts on the achievements and values of young adults. http://tiny.cc/Oprbg

Center for Arts Education—See Israel, D. below

Center for Education Policy. (2005-09). An unfinished canvas: Arts education in California. Series of 

publications and presentation based on series of publications. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International 

ChildTrends DataBank. Dropout Rates. Retrieved from www.childtrendsdatabank.org

Conference Board—See Casner-Lotto above

Corbett, D., McKenney, M., Noblit, G., & Wilson, B. (2001). The A+ schools program: school, community, 

teacher, and student effects. (Report #6 in a series of seven policy reports summarizing the four-year pilot 

of A+ schools in North Carolina). Winston-Salem, NC: Kenan Institute for the Arts 

Deasy, R.J. (Ed.). (2002). Critical links: Learning in the arts and student achievement and social 

development. Washington, DC: The Arts Education Partnership

DeMoss, K., & Morris, T. (2002). How arts integration supports student learning: Students shed light on the 

connections. Chicago, IL: Chicago Arts Partnerships in Education (CAPE)

Driver, C.E. (2010). Can the arts become part of the ‘basics’ of our public education? In Thought leader 

forum on arts and education: Assuring equitable arts learning in urban K-12 public schools. Report of 

conference hosted by Grantmakers in the Arts and Grantmakers for Education. Seattle, WA: Grantmakers 

in the Arts

Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumburger, R., & Smink, J. (2008). Dropout prevention: A 

practice guide. (NCEE 2008-4025). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and 

Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education

Education Commission of the States. (2004). An arts-rich education helps prepare students for a changing 

world. Denver, CO: Author
70 Reinvesting in Arts Education

APPENDICES

Education Commission of the States. (2005). State policies regarding arts in education. Denver, CO: 

Author

Education Commission of the States. (2006). Governor’s commission on the arts in education: findings and 

recommendations. Denver, CO: Author

EPE Research Center (2010). Diplomas count: Graduation by the numbers, putting data to work for student 

success. Editorial Projects in Education, 29(34)

ExCLAIMS!—See Anne Arundel above

Fiske, E.B. (Ed.). (1999). Champions of change: the impact of the arts on learning. Washington, DC: The 

Arts Education Partnership and the President’s Committee on Arts and Humanities. Retrieved from 

http://www.aep-arts.org/files/publications/ChampsReport.pdf

Friedenwald-Fishman, E. (2009). Building public will for arts education. Presentation at Access, Equity 

and Quality in Arts Learning Conference, Seattle, WA

Golden, S. (2007). Profiles in excellence: Case studies of exemplary arts education partnerships. New York, 

NY: National Guild of Community Schools of the Arts

Government Accounting Office (2009). Access to arts education: Inclusion of additional questions in 

Education’s planned research would help explain why instruction time has decreased for some students.

Washington, DC: Author

Guttman, J.S. (2007). Partners in excellence: A guide to community school of the arts/public school 

partnerships from inspiration to implementation. New York, NY: National Guild of Community Schools of 

the Arts

Harris, L., & Princiotta, C. (2009). Reducing dropout rates through expanded learning opportunities. (Issue 

Brief ). Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices

Heath, S.B, Soep, E., & Roach, A. (1998). Living the arts through language-learning: A report on 

community-based organizations. Americans for the Arts 2(7), 1-20

IBM Corporation. (2010). Capitalizing on complexity: Insights from the 2010 IBM global CEO study. 

Armonk, NY: Author

Ingram, D., & Reidell, E. (2003). Arts for academic achievement: What does arts integration do for students?

Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement

Israel, D. (2009). Staying in school: Arts education and New York City high school graduation rates. New 

York City: The Center for Arts Education 

Johns Hopkins University, School of Education. (n.d.). Neuro-Education initiative.Baltimore: MD, 

Author. Retrieved from http://education.jhu.edu/nei/

Keiper, S., Sandene, B.A., Persky, H.R., & Kuang, M. (2009). The Nation’sReport Card:Arts 2008 music& 

visual arts. Washington, DC: National Assessment of Educational Progress

Lichtenberg, J., Woock, C., & Wright, M. (2008). Ready to innovate: Are educators and executives aligned on 

the creative readiness of the U.S. workforce? New York, NY: The Conference Board

Longley, L. (1999). Gaining the arts advantage: Lessons from school districts that value arts education. 

Washington, DC: The President’s Committee on Arts and Humanities
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 71

APPENDICES

McCann, J. (2010). Thought leader forum on arts and education: Assuring equitable arts learning in 

urban K-12 public schools. Report of conference hosted by Grantmakers in the Arts and Grantmakers for 

Education. Seattle, WA: Grantmakers in the Arts

McCarthy, K.F., Ondaatje, E.H., Zakaras, L., & Brooks, A. (2004). Gifts of the muse: Reframing the debate 

about the benefits of the arts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND

McLaughlin, M.M. (2000). Community counts: How youth organizations matter for youth development.

Washington, DC: Public Education Network 

McMurrer, J. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. 

Washington, DC; Center on Education Policy

Morgan Management Systems. (1981). CETA and the arts and humanities: Fifteen case studies.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor

National Art Education Association. (2009). Learning in a visual age: The critical importance of visual arts 

education. Reston, VA: Author

National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies. (1994). Arts Corps: The first three years. Washington, DC: 

Author

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. (2009). Arts education state profiles project. Washington, DC: 

Author

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. (March 2010). Support for arts education. State agency fact 

sheet. Washington, DC: Author

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (September, 2009). Dropout and completion rates in the 

United States: 2007. (NCES 2009-064). Washington, DC: Author

National Center on Education and the Economy. (2007). Tough choices or tough times: The report of the 

new Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. Washington, DC: Author 

National Governors Association, Center for Arts and Culture. (2001). Creativity, culture, education and 

the workforce. Washington, DC: Author

National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices. (2002). The impact of arts education on 

workforce preparation. Washington, DC: Author

National Guild for Community Arts Education. (2010) Partners in arts education grant program: program 

overview: 2010–2011 academic year. New York, NY: Author 

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading 

Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on 

reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office

Nelson, A.L. (2008). The art of collaboration: promising practices for integrating the arts and school reform. 

Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership

Nelson, C.A. (2001). The arts and education reform: Lessons from a 4-year pilot of the A+ schools program. 

Greensboro, NC: Thomas S. Kenan Institute for the Arts

New Commission on Skills of the American Workforce—See national Center on Education and the 

Economy above
72 Reinvesting in Arts Education

APPENDICES

Noblit, G.W., Corbett, H.D., Wilson, B.L., & McKenney, M.B. (2009). Creating and sustaining arts-based 

school reform: The A+ schools program. New York: Routledge

Ohio Alliance for Arts Education. (2006, August). An overview of arts education in Ohio and OAAE’s 

advocacy agenda. Columbus, OH: Author

Partnership for 21st Century Schools. (2010). 21st Century skills map: The arts. Tucson, AZ: Author

Pytel, B. (2008). Predicting dropouts: Middle school data foretells who will drop out. Retrieved from http://

www.suite101.com/content/p

Quintin, O. (2009). Creativity in schools in Europe: A survey of teachers.Brussels: European Commission 

Joint Research Center, The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

Rabkin, N. (2010). Looking for Mr. Good argument: The arts and the search for a leg to stand on in public 

education. In Thought leader forum on arts and education: Assuring equitable arts learning in urban K-12 

public schools. Report of conference hosted by Grantmakers in the Arts and Grantmakers for Education. 

Seattle, WA: Grantmakers in the Arts

Rabkin, N. & Hedberg, E.C. (2011). Arts education in America: What the declines mean for arts 

participation. Research Report #52. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts

Real Visions. Montgomery County Public Schools Arts Integration Model Schools Program 2004-2007. 

Final Evaluation report. (2007, June). Berkeley Springs, WV: Real Visions

Rudacliffe, D. (2010, September 1). This is your brain on art. Urbanite: Baltimore Magazine. Retrieved 

from http://www.urbanitebaltimore.com/baltimore/this-is-your-brain-on-art/Content?oid=1296770 

Ruppert, S. (2006). Critical evidence: How the arts benefit student achievement. Washington, DC: National 

Assembly of State Arts Agencies and the Arts Education Partnership

Sabol, F.R. (2010). No Child Left Behind: A study of its impact on art education. Reston, VA: National Art 

Education Association

Seidel, S., Tishman, S., Winner, E., Hetland, L., & Palmer, P. (2009). The qualities of quality: Understanding 

excellence in arts education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, Project Zero

Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N.K., Pearson, P.D., Schatscheinder, C., & Torgeson, J. (2010). 

Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-

4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute for 

Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education

Sternberg, R.J. & Williams, W.M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Alexandra, VA: ASCD

Stevenson, L.M., & Deasy, R.J. (2005). Third space: When learning matters. Washington, DC: Arts 

Education Partnership

U.S. Conference of Mayors. (2010). Resolutions related to the arts and humanities. Washington, DC: 

Author 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (1978). The partnership of CETA & 

the arts: Six reprints from Worklife magazine. Washington, DC: Author. ED173490

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the new survival skills 

our children need—and what we can do about it. New York: Basic Books
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 73

Weiss, S. (2004). The arts in education. The Progress of Education Reform, 5(1) 

Wells, A.S. (1989). Middle school education—The critical link in dropout prevention. ERIC/CUE Digest 

No. 56. New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education 

Winner, E., Hetland, L., Veenema, S., Sheridan, K., & Palmer, P. (2006). Studio thinking: how visual arts 

teaching can promote disciplined habits of mind.In P. Locher, C. Martindale, L. Dorfman, & D. Leontiev 

(Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (189-205). Amityville, New York: Baywood 

Publishing Company

Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2000, Fall/Winter). The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence 

shows. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34

APPENDICES
74 Reinvesting in Arts Education

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

During the research phase, PCAH staff, committee members, and our consultant regularly 

made informal inquiries, convened discussions and made site visits with a variety of stakeholders to inform our efforts. We extend thanks to all those who generously agreed to participate and share their insights. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the following 

organizations which made valuable contributions to this report: 

PCAH Working Group on Arts and Humanities Education; U.S. Department of Education; National Endowment for the Arts; Corporation for National and Community Service; U.S. Department of Labor; Florida Division of Cultural Affairs; Maryland State Arts 

Council; Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs; New Jersey State Council on the 

Arts; North Carolina Arts Council; Ohio Arts Council; Pennsylvania Council on the Arts; 

Tennessee Arts Commission; Washington State Arts Commission; Wisconsin Arts Board; 

New England Foundation for the Arts; South Arts; U.S. Conference of Mayors; Arts Education Partnership; National Assembly of State Arts Agencies; Americans for the Arts; International Council of Fine Arts Deans; National Art Education Association; National Guild 

for Community Arts Education; League of American Orchestras; VSA; Center for Arts Education of New York; Arts Education in Maryland Schools Alliance; Arts Corps; The John F. 

Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts; Lincoln Center Institute; New York University, 

Tisch School of the Arts; Music National Service; NYC Civic Corps; Teach for America; 

Watts House Project; Urban Gateways; Chicago Arts Partnerships in Education; Margaret 

A. Cargill Foundation; Teaching Artists Research Project (TARP); STUDIO in a School; A+ 

Schools Program, North Carolina; P.S. ARTS; Silk Road Project – Silk Road Connect; Horace Greeley Elementary School, Chicago IL; Telpochcalli Elementary School, Chicago, IL; 

Benson Heights Elementary School of the Arts, Monroe, NC; Community Charter School, 

Charlotte, NC; Roland Park Elementary School, Baltimore, MD; Kensington Parkwood Elementary School, Kensington, MD; Will Rogers Elementary, Santa Monica, CA; MS 223 The 

Labratory School of Finance & Technology, Bronx, NY.

Special thanks to the following individuals whose support, guidance and advice during this process were greatly appreciated: Secretary Duncan and his staff at the Department of Education, in particular Jim Shelton, David Hoff and Tim Tuten; Melody Barnes 
 Reinvesting in Arts Education 75

and her staff at the Domestic Policy Council, especially Roberto Rodriquez and Lauren 

Dunn; Chairman Landesman and his staff at the National Endowment for the Arts, in particular Joan Shigekawa and Patrice Walker Powell; Dennis Scholl; Myrna Greenberg; Kalpen Modi; Sandra Ruppert; Jonathan Katz; Nina Ozlu Tunceli; Nora Halpern; Narric Rome; 

Heather Noonan; Tom Cochran; Jonathan Herman; Kiff Gallagher; Tom Cahill; Richard 

Kessler; Scott Noppe-Brandon; Deborah Reeve; Nick Rabkin; Susannah Washburn; Mary 

Luehrsen; Ross Wiener; Cristin Bagnall; Mary Ann Mears; Amy Rasmussen; Julie Simpson; 

Kristen Greer-Paglia; Vicki Vitiello; Lori Sherman; and Michelle Burrows. None is responsible for the content of this report, which represents only the views of the PCAH.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
76 Reinvesting in Arts Education

Members of the President’s Committee on 

the Arts and the Humanities

Michelle Obama, Honorary Chair

Co-Chair

George Stevens, Jr.

Washington, DC 

Producer, writer and director 

Co-Chair 

Margo Lion

New York, NY 

Theater producer, Margo Lion Ltd.

Vice Chair

Dr. Mary Schmidt Campbell 

New York, NY 

Dean, New York University’s Tisch 

School of the Arts

•••••

Ricky Arriola, Miami, FL, President 

and CEO, Inktel Direct

Madeleine H. Berman, Franklin, 

MI, Community leader

Chuck Close, New York, NY, 

Visual Artist

Richard J. Cohen, St. Paul, MN, 

Minnesota State Senator

Paula H. Crown, Chicago, IL, 

Principal, Henry Crown and 

Company

Christine Forester, La Jolla, CA, 

Principal, Christine Forester Catalyst

Fred Goldring, Pacific Palisades, 

CA, Entrepreneur, Goldring 

Strategies

Howard Gottlieb, Wilmette, IL, 

General Partner, Glen Eagle Partners

Teresa Heinz, Washington, DC, 

Chairman, Heinz Endowments, 

Heinz Family Philanthropies

Sheila Johnson, The Plains, VA, 

Founder and CEO, Salamander 

Hospitality

Pamela Joyner, San Francisco, CA, 

Founder, Avid Partners, LLC

Victoria S. Kennedy, Pacific 

Palisades, CA, Educational 

Consultant

Jhumpa Lahiri, Brooklyn, NY, 

Author

Bryan Lourd, Los Angeles, CA, 

Partner and Managing Director, 

Creative Artists Agency

Anne Luzzatto, New York, NY, 

Consultant

Yo-Yo Ma, Cambridge, MA, 

Musician, Artistic Director, The Silk 

Road Project

Liz Manne, New York, NY, Executive 

Director, FilmAid International

Thom Mayne, Los Angeles, CA, 

Architect, Founder, Morphosis 

Architects

Olivia Morgan, Washington, DC, 

Managing Editor, The Shriver Report

Edward Norton, New York, NY, 

Actor, writer and producer

Sarah Jessica Parker, New York, 

NY, Actor and producer

Ken Solomon, Santa Monica, CA, 

Chairman, Ovation TV

Andy Spahn, Los Angeles, CA, 

President, Andy Spahn & Associates

Jill Cooper Udall, Santa Fe, NM, 

Attorney

Reginald van Lee, New York, NY, 

Executive Vice President, Booz 

Allen Hamilton

Dr. Agnes Varis, New York, 

NY, Founder and President, 

Agvar Chemicals and Modavar 

Pharmaceuticals

Kerry Washington, New York, NY, 

Actor and activist

Alexa Wesner, Austin, TX, 

Community volunteer

Forest Whitaker, Los Angeles, CA, 

Actor, writer, producer and social 

activist

Anna Wintour, New York, NY, 

Editor in Chief, Vogue

Damian Woetzel, New York, NY, 

Dancer, director, producer and 

arts activist

George C. Wolfe, New York, NY, 

Director, writer, producer

Alfre Woodard, Santa Monica, CA, 

Actor and social activist

Ex Officio:

James H. Billington, Librarian of 

Congress, Library of Congress

Hillary R. Clinton, Secretary, U.S. 

Department of State

G. Wayne Clough, Secretary, 

Smithsonian Institution

Arne Duncan, Secretary, U.S. 

Department of Education

Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, 

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Susan Hildreth, Director, Institute 

of Museum and Library Services

Martha N. Johnson, Administrator, 

U.S. General Services Administration

Rocco Landesman, Chairman, 

National Endowment for the Arts

Jim Leach, Chairman, National 

Endowment for the Humanities

Earl Powell III, Director, National 

Gallery of Art

David Rubenstein, Chairman, 

John F. Kennedy Center for the 

Performing Arts

Ken Salazar, Secretary, U.S. 

Department of the Interior

President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities

1100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 526

Washington, DC 20506

Telephone: 202-682-5409

www.pcah.gov

NOT FOR SALE