Based on input from key stakeholders and area citizens, the Arts Partners Visioning Committee has drafted the following purpose statement and would like your feedback. As stated by Big Thought consultant Gigi Antoni, “It is important to keep in mind that the purpose statement is a target or compass – a directional tool – not the ‘how’.” For example, measurable impact will be determined by the program design and assessment planning, all part of the dynamic design process.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Arts Partners Purpose Statement
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. The purpose statement is clear and forceful, but it struck two odd (and maybe too finely nuanced) notes with me.
First, it implies a primary priority on integrating the community's arts resources INTO education rather than a primary priority on students HAVING good arts education, regardless of the use of community-based resources. Maybe this is intentional; I don't know. The latter idea suggests a policy dimension, while the current language is more delivery-focused. Is Arts Partners aiming at changing values, policy and resources via work at the district level, or is it primarily a practical vehicle to deliver arts resources to the classroom by whatever means possible?
Second, the statement promotes the notion that arts education has to be about measurable learning, rather than about children becoming fully developed human beings. This is probably good language from a tactical standpoint, but still a little narrow for my personal taste.
My response is probably just an illustration of how easily a mission statement can be misread! But there it is....
The community's arts and cultural resources are ALREADY being harnessed by many public schools. There is much good work being done by local artists and arts organizations in schools in both high and low-income neighborhoods, especially in the after-school hours.
What's really needed in Portland is a comprehensive arts education program WITHIN the school district, with an emphasis on allocating funds toward hiring and retaining arts teachers so that every student has, at the very least, quality music and art classes as part of their education from K-12.
I hope Arts Partners will re-evaluate its purpose and help Portland move toward what's really needed rather than place the entire burden of arts education on the community's arts resources, which have, in recent years, been carrying more than their fair share.
I concur with Amy and Jeff's statements. Amy brings up a very important point. Arts ARE currently being integrated into K-8 schools and community arts and cultural resources are being utilized. I will credit the Arts Partners purpose statement for saying that is aims to reach EVERY K-8 student because that's one thing not being done.
There was a time that every student had access and that was when there were arts teachers placed at each school - Amy touched on this. It seems to me that a lot of money is being spent to skirt around the issue. Community arts organizations can definitely help out, as can after-school programming, but without an advocate at each school, the goal seems very unobtainable.
My comment is a question. Is "region" being used to define the geographical boundaries of the initiative because:
A. At this early stage in the planning process the goal is to be as inclusive as possible.
B. The geographical limits of this program have not been agreed upon yet.
It seems to me you will have to name the "partners" in your Purpose Statement if you are going to get the political (read financial) support you need to get this much needed program off the ground...as well as to sustain it over time.
I am pleased to see the attempt to get feedback on the mission statement. While I appreciate the concerns raised so far, I think that it is a tall order to create a single mission statement for a metro project. Using general language that speaks to integration of the arts and cultural resources makes sense. Measurable impact on is also needed if the partnership wants school districts to sign on and contribute. Finally, the only concern is the K-8 note. Not all school districts will be involving 6-8. Thanks for putting this out there.
I agree with Jim's first point and had the same basic reaction to the implied prioritization. I also agree with Amy and would like to see arts and culture integrated throughout the entire FORMAL curriculum. Here's a rough draft of how a purpose statement might reflect all of that:
Achieve measurable increases in overall student success for k-8 students by integrating the community’s cultural and art resources into the formal and informal curriculum at school.
You all raise important points which help us see the issues we need to address. Thanks, Eric, for your specific suggestion on reworking the purpose statement. We’ll give it careful consideration.
I think we all agree that our schools are sorely lacking standards-based sequential arts curriculum. We know area citizens share this value based on input from the community conversations held in the fall. We also heard from arts organizations that they are not interested in replacing school arts specialists. Nor should they be. That is the role of school districts, one they’ve been hard-pressed to fill given budget constraints and the accountability demands of No Child Left Behind. Arts Partners was born in response to the question of what can we do as a community to collaboratively address this issue. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the outcome in our community is like that in Dallas where all of their schools are now re-hiring arts specialists AND still have the resources Arts Partners provides?
Jeff, your comment about “measurable impact” being too narrowly defined is appreciated. We were searching for a phrase that could encompass a range of possible outcomes we might chose to measure, from academic achievement (i.e. literacy skills) to increased creative capacity (like imagination and innovation). We wanted “learning” to be all encompassing – artists and teachers as well as students.
Concerning Mark’s question, “region” refers to the tri-county area, determined by the footprint of the Regional Arts & Culture Council. Implementation will begin in the five initial partnering school districts of Beaverton, Gresham-Barlow, Hillsboro, North Clackamas and Portland. The timeline to expand to all tri-county school districts is yet to be determined.
And finally, the purpose statement was crafted to allow for some flexibility across school districts, among schools and for arts organizations so the program can, to some degree, be tailored to suit the needs at hand.
I want to go on record as encouraging ArtsPartners to reconsider its K-8 focus in light of PPS's announcement this week that it will undertake a public process to evaluate and ultimately reorganize district high schools into a more effective learning experience.
ArtsPartners should reconvene with PPS administrators in light of the emergence of this new priority, and review whether ArtsPartners might have a role in this revisioning process. The Arts are already helping to reshape some high schools through arts-focused academies which have formed within existing buildings at Roosevelt, Madison and Marshall. ArtsPartners should align itself with this new visioning process, and seize the potential of the Arts to transform 9-12, as well as K-8, learning.
While I have seen first hand the benefits of having strong arts curriculum in the high schools, I believe the partnership is right to bite off the even more critical K-8 part first. We need to take care not to thin the soup. In time, if successful, I'm sure this program can expand to serve high school students.
It's tempting to try and address all the needs all at once. The needs are so great throughout our region's schools.
I think the broad language of the purpose statement is fitting of how this program is designed to be dynamic and grow with funding, capacity and our community's needs.
I agree with the above comment that we need to bite off what we can chew--that we need to get good at a scale that makes sense, can have long lasting impact, and then move to do more.
I am humbled to accept that this is the beginning of an exciting but long-term strategy! I think we will get there through thoughtful and incremental steps.
Exciting times!
As we look to Dallas' great success with this model, I believe we have learned two vital lessons:
1. Awareness can be changed.
2. Patience is a must.
It took Dallas ten years to make all their amazing achievements. Back then, their numbers looked quite similar to ours now: low Arts specialist FTE, racial/economic gaps in Arts recipients, inconsistent Arts delivery, decentralized tapping of community Arts organization, etc..
We should start with K-8, then expand.
We should grow with the funding and capacity.
We should make sure outcomes are measurable (I believe in educating the whole child... in a measurable way.)
We must continue to remind everyone that Arts Partners is not a replacement for rigorous, sequential instruction (such as that taught by a Band teacher). If anything, the greater exposure to the Arts, the more awareness will change.
The awareness is what added the FTE back into the schools in Dallas.
The patience is what got them there.
I am also very excited!
Post a Comment