MASTERS PROJECT

THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
CINCINNATI, OHIO

IDENTIFYING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
EDUCATIONAL-ARTISTIC PARTNERSHIPS AND
THEIR METHODS OF EVALUATION

SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE-CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
For the degree of
MASTER OF MUSIC (Music Education)

By
Glen Allan Tuomaala
Cincinnati, Ohio
April, 2000

Educational-artistic partnerships are an increasingly attractive objective for both school systems and professional arts organizations. Cooperative agreements enable both types of organizations to achieve "more with less" by combining common resources, such as staff or facilities, to achieve a common objective. This new collaboration is a creative effort built on good faith resulting in a product or service which accomplishes more in a shorter period of time than what each individual organization may have achieved working alone.

Whether they are called mentoring or adopt-a-school programs, coalitions or compacts, the cast of characters that provides the initial leadership for any educational-artistic partnership is diverse. Education leaders of elementary and secondary schools look to education-artistic partnerships to serve as opportunities for teacher training, to serve as a catalyst to design and improve curriculum, to provide new educational resources, and to expand student artistic experiences.

An example of this type of partnership is the "community night" program sponsored by the Buffalo Public Schools / Amherst School System and the Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra. Student ensembles perform prior to regular season Buffalo Philharmonic Concerts and receive free admission to the following concert with reduced ticket prices to their parents and friends. This effort is preceded by a visit to the guest ensemble the day before the concert by the conductor or guest artist in the form of a workshop or clinic. The initial success of this program has been expanded to 1.) serve as a fund-raiser with the refund of five percent of the proceeds from each "community night" to the guest school music ensemble; and 2.) establish a new open rehearsal policy where students and teachers not only observe, but also are encouraged to engage in a dialogue with performing orchestral musicians. This type of partnership has clear benefits for both organizations in terms of special clinic and performance opportunities for students and the benefits of increased ticket sales, long term audience development and positive community relations for the Philharmonic.

The "Gibbs Street Connection" takes the education-artistic partnership to a new level with the combination of a university organization such as the Eastman School of Music and a professional arts organization like the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra. Their program is designed for the purpose of "creating a professional development program for area music educators." (McCusker 1999, 37) The administrator of this program designs listening guides for classroom discussion prior to each concert, provides free tickets to the performances, and solicits written evaluations from the participating teachers. Begun in 1996, the "Gibbs Street Connection" benefits three levels of educational-artistic partnerships from elementary and secondary schools and college / university programs to professional arts organizations.

Partnership programs have also been implemented beyond the educational-artistic arena in the example of "The Detroit Compact" where twelve stakeholders were brought together to better coordinate their contributions to and efforts on behalf of the Detroit Public School System. Business leaders, education administrators, teachers, state and local governments, community, parent groups, and students all had a stake in providing incentives to improve attendance rates, eliminating discipline problems, increasing test scores, and providing job training or higher education opportunities. From 1989 to 1991 approximately nine-school systems and almost 3,000 students signed contracts dedicated to achieving these goals within an integrated partnership program.

Seen as models of partnership programs these examples do not accurately reflect the challenge and complexity involved in the process of their creation. With such a varied cast of characters, each holding unique perspectives and motivations for a successful partnership, it is no surprise that conflicts occur when the stage is set for even the initial steps in coordinating their efforts. Educational institutions desire outlets for teacher training, advanced artistic opportunities for their students, assistance with curriculum development and sometimes even "stop-gap" initiatives for arts programs that have been eliminated. On the other side, professional arts organizations and the business community look to partnership programs to reflect their commitment to the local community, long term audience development and ticket sales and sometimes also for job or vocational training (although more so in business-education partnership programs).

"The Detroit Compact," for example, has ceased to exist amidst the chaos of a district take-over by the state of Michigan and new leadership from city government that has successfully courted local businesses to contribute larger amounts of time and money to rebuild the school system. Nonetheless, in an atmosphere of limited budgets and threats of program elimination, educational-artistic partnerships of every variety continue to be more attractive than ever to the leaders of both educational and artistic institutions.

It is not uncommon that the very organizations that need these types of partnerships the most are often the least prepared to organize and implement them. Few school systems or professional arts organizations have experience in designing partnerships with organizations holding mission statements foreign to their own. There also exists the necessity to evaluate the efforts of these partnership programs to determine the extent to which they are achieving their goals.

The goal of this project was to compare information collected from the existing literature and information from interviews with leaders in the arts community to identify the common characteristics of successful educational-artistic partnerships. The results of the project should benefit: 1.) fine arts teachers by supplying realistic information to effectively approach the process of working within a partnership program; 2.) arts administrators with meaningful experience and advice to understand how to work better with educational leaders; and, 3.) professional artists with useful information to assist in employment within an educational-artistic partnership in their community. The results of this project provide a common "blueprint" of experience and advice for future organizations that desire to successfully explore the process of building or maintaining a successful educational-artistic partnership based on a contrast and comparison of the gathered research.

The purpose of this project was to identify a common set of traits and characteristics of educational-artistic partnerships. This process was based on the contrast and comparison of two significant and different sources of data: 1.) a review of existing literature from both the business, educational, and artistic disciplines; and, 2.) experiential data collected from interviews of a selected group of fine arts leaders familiar with building partnership programs. Supportive goals of the project included the synthesis of the value of partnership programs and a review of their common methods of evaluation. Project results should be beneficial to three groups of participants in similar ways:

1. Project results provide fine arts teachers with realistic information to effectively approach the process of working within a partnership program.

2. Project results offer arts administrators meaningful experience and advice from their own colleagues to understand how to work better with educational leaders within a partnership program.

3. Project results provide professional artists with information concerning employment within an educational-artistic partnership in their community.

A review of the existing literature was the starting point for the project. The literature review included information on common elements of educational partnerships, examples of successful partnerships, and some methods of evaluation. A variety of common traits and characteristics were identified in the existing literature and included: 1.) the need for effective leadership; 2.) construction of a clear vision or goal; 3.) availability of long term funding or resources; 4.) a high level of trust; 5.) open communication among participants; and, 6.) efficient use of information and time. After comparing all of the sources of existing literature the three primary qualities associated with successful partnerships programs were identified as leadership, communication, and trust. Evaluation of partnerships programs was the weakest and least undeveloped aspect addressed in the existing literature. Methods of evaluation were more focused on the number of students or schools served rather than on the quality of the experiences or effectiveness of the programs. Motivations for the evaluation of partnership programs and specific methods of evaluation were not listed in the exiting literature.

Nine interview subjects (Appendix A) were selected based on their experience in working with fine arts partnerships, a reputation for building and maintaining educational-artistic partnerships in the greater Cincinnati area, and their willingness to participate in the project. Background experience of the interview subjects was quite varied and included former classroom teachers and principals, educational technology experts, and arts administration leaders in the visual and musical arts. Interview subjects included:

1. Ms. Tamera Harkavy, Program Director – ArtWorks (Appendix C)

2. Sr. Carren Herring - Fine Arts Coordinator - Eastern Catholic Alliance of Excellence (Appendix D)

3. Ms. Lauren Hess, Program Director - Association for the Advancement of Arts Education (Appendix E)

4. Ms. Lorna-Kay Peal, Director of Educational Activities - Cincinnati Art Museum (Appendix F)

5. Ms. Jackie Quay - SPECTRA+ Program - Fitton Center for the Fine Arts (Appendix G)

6. Ms. Ann-Cushing Reid, Educational and Outreach Department - Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra (Appendix H)

7. Mr. Dan Stacy, Director of Education and Technology - WCET Television (Appendix I)

8. Ms. Linda Tresvant, Executive Director – ArtLinks (Appendix J)

9. Mr. Alan Yaffe – Arts Administration faculty – University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music (Appendix K)

A uniform script (Appendix B) was developed to provide a framework for the interviews and overall consistency of data collected. Interviews were scheduled at the preference of the subject and conducted in person as well as via telephone and electronic mail. Special attention was given to a conservative length of interview and open-ended questions for each of the two areas of inquiry: general background and core partnership questions. Each interview began with a short introduction and description of the project goal followed by an inquiry of the general background of the interview subject, the goals and objectives of their organization, and the partnership programs in which they had been a member. The three specific goals of the first part of the interview script were:

1. List the title of interview subject and outline the responsibilities.

2. Identify the goals or objectives of their organization.

3. Outline the partnership programs and special services in which their organization was engaged.

The second part of the interview script addressed the value (strengths) of partnership programs, the challenges (weaknesses) of partnership programs, the common characteristics of building successful partnership programs, and the methods of evaluation used by their organizations to measure the effectiveness of their programs. The four specific goals of the second part of the interview script were:

4. Identify the value (strengths) of partnership programs.

5. Identify the challenges (weaknesses) of partnership programs.

6. Identify the most important traits or characteristics of building a successful partnership programs.

7. Identify the methods employed to evaluate the success of their partnership programs.

A typed transcript of the interview session was prepared and submitted to each interview subject for their review and approval. The review of these transcripts was necessary to help validate the original information collected as well as provide an additional opportunity to collect supportive archival material from their organizations such as brochures, program guides, sample evaluation forms, etc. Reference materials collected from the project included hand-written notes and typed transcripts of each interview. After the transcripts were organized a summary of the results was made. The summary of the results of the interview data was then compared to the existing literature and recommendations were formulated. These results provided a new opportunity to compare and contrast the collected findings of the existing literature with the life experiences of fine arts administrators to identify the common traits and characteristics of educational-artistic partnerships.

Existing literature on building and maintaining partnership programs is just as diverse as the organizations that sponsor them. Due to the diversity of organizations involved in partnership programs, information was examined from both the business, educational, and artistic disciplines to gain a broad understanding of the parameters of the subject. This survey began with the historical influences of early partnership programs.

The benefits of educational partnerships first attracted the attention of the business world following the political and social turmoil caused by the orbit of Sputnik in 1957. The resulting wave of national attention to improve our educational system motivated business leaders to actively support and sponsor the long-term benefits of new educational partnerships. This new motivation, originally for national pride and self-preservation, came in the form of everything from general vocational training at secondary schools to scientific research at the university level.

The 1983 report to the Secretary of Education conducted by the National Commission on Excellence in Education titled A Nation At Risk continued this trend with recommendations for increased business and community involvement. "Adopt-a-school programs were encouraged, mentoring became fashionable, and business, using its financial resources and influence, was viewed as the engine to drive recalcitrant educators toward school reform." (Lund 1993, 10) The early roots of many business, educational, and artistic partnership programs may be traced back to these two significant social and political events.

The starting point to identify the characteristics of partnership program is the large amount of literature available from the business community in the form of reports, reviews, and "how to" program guides. The Conference Board, a non-profit business information service, makes available transcripts from their annual business-education partnership and school reform conferences. Business sponsored partnerships base their involvement on three motives: "relevance" of business experience in the school setting, "standards" and the opportunity to increase academic standards in the schools, and "skills" which prepare students to enter the modern workforce. (Hirsch 1992, 24) Business partnerships with education continue today with the sometimes-controversial for-profit sponsorship of charter schools and the federal "School-To-Work Opportunities Act." which some critics have labeled as modern socialism.

Literature created by educational organizations range from simple trade journal articles to texts dedicated to the educational leadership necessary to build partnerships with heath and human services organizations, religious organizations, families, business, and a broad range of non-profit organizations. Gold and Charner define higher education partnerships as opportunities to trade in the "three types of resources: ideas, wealth, and people" (Gold and Charner 1986, 4-5) and provide case studies of each resource in practice. Categories of partnerships at the higher education level include "Joint Research" where the goal is to build or develop ideas and concepts, "Economic Development" where the goal is to create new wealth with the use of money, markets, manpower, materials or management, and "Human Resource Development" which is the investment in people and their talents. (Gold and Charner 1986, 5) In comparing and contrasting the contributions and experiences of these varied types of partnerships three common trends appear throughout: leadership, communication, and trust.

When comparing varied sources in the existing literature, the quality of leadership is the most common characteristic associated with partnership programs. "Nowhere is the inspiration and commitment of individuals more important than at the very beginning of the partnership process, when somebody has an idea and has to persuade others to cooperate." (Hirsch 1992, 17) The Kennedy Center for the Arts outlines the importance of local, person-to-person contact to build partnerships, adequate funding “…and, most importantly, the role that leadership serves in this process." (Chapman 1993, 27) "We also learned that partnerships depend on an individual, institution, or organization to assume the task of coordination on behalf of the other partners." (Chapman 1993, 27-28) The Conference Board associates the quality of leadership with the building of long-term partnerships known as coalitions. The key to building these coalitions "… is heavily dependent upon its leadership, and particularly the talent of its director, and upon the support and commitment of all the participants." (Lund 1993, 10) In comparing the available literature in both business and education, it is clear that the quality of leadership is the most important aspect of building a partnership program.

Communication and trust among visual designers building new creative partnerships with other artists state that "the advantages of successful creative partnerships start with a very high level of trust between the partners." (Piscopo 1996, 52) Professional arts organizations like the Durham Community Artists Partnership Program have found new methods of building such levels of trust by experimenting with alternative collaboration techniques between individual artists and communities. Their first effort removes the traditional funding process by guaranteeing funding to an artist and local community before a relationship has been created. By eliminating an often lengthy and complex funding process, they believe that result will positively affect the end product and provide more time and energy to focus on the communication of goals and beliefs. (Watkins and Malcolm 1993, 40) "Honoring the process" without forcing partnership goals on individuals is an important element of the Durham CAPP. In addition to the qualities of leadership, communication, and trust more concrete elements are also noted by the Durham CAPP such as information, time, and resources.

Common sources of information related to partnership programs are easily located in business and educational literature, but less common is the contribution provided by standard arts administration texts. Mainstream arts administration textbooks focus on the traditional topics of strategic planning, internal organization, staffing, marketing, financial management and fundraising at the neglect of the partnership process. This literature is at the expense of exposing future arts administration leaders to the real world responsibilities of building partnership programs with fellow colleagues within their community. Even the basic need for expanded audience development (which is most often related to increased income) is not mentioned in the basic texts in the field of arts administration. The result of this omission may reflect the low priority that arts administrators currently place on training new leaders to build educational-artistic partnership programs. With the survival of many professional arts organizations in jeopardy, the topic of building partnership programs would appear to be a necessary part of study for future arts administrators.

The documentation of the methods and results of the evaluation of partnership programs is not nearly as common as the record of their efforts. One of the most well developed evaluation methods is sponsored by the Kennedy Center for the Arts which completed two extensive case studies of their most effective community-based partnership programs in Colorado Springs and Fort Worth. (Chapman 1993, 28) Evaluation of business efforts in partnership programs focused on school reform included a 1994 study by the Conference Board, which reflected increased academic success at Jeff Davis High School in Houston, Texas. After three years of combined corporate and government partnerships at the high school, positive gains were measured in the number of students enrolled in honors courses, percentage of students passing the state achievement test for graduation, and the number of students successfully graduating in four years. (Garone 1994, 23) Information on the methods and results of evaluation of partnership programs is the least documented element of the program activities. This lack of information may reflect a misunderstanding of the role that effective evaluation serves in validating the partnership process.

The value of educational-artistic partnerships was a consistent factor between the nine interview subjects selected for this project. All of the interview subjects recognized and encouraged the combination of resources to achieve greater goals and objectives. Building new relationships to create the opportunity to improve organizational achievement was an overwhelming viewpoint of all of the interview subjects. "Partnerships bring out the strengths of each organization and allow these strengths to shine. These combined resources are an asset." (Lauren Hess, April 2000) This value was also frequently cited in the existing literature since it proposes a common sense approach to their work as arts administrators: many hands make light work.

A secondary value of partnership programs to the interview subjects was the ability to “bridge the gap” between teachers, students, and artists to affect the overall attitudes that people have towards the arts. “Not all people view the arts as being central to a balanced education. Some school administrators, teachers, and parents believe that more time should be spent on ‘the basics’ and less on arts education.” (Carren Herring, April 2000) This value is less abstract than the primary response, but neither made direct reference to the end products of their own partnerships: the enrichment of the students and their community. Other benefits listed by the interview subjects were related to the primary goal of achievement. A frequent belief was the importance that the interview subjects placed on joint grant writing since philanthropic contributors favor grant applications that combine the services of multiple organizations. “Many of our arts organizations share the same funding sources and donors are happy to see such cooperation.” (Dan Stacy, April 2000)

Regardless of the varied values held for educational-artistic partnerships, all of the interview subjects were enthusiastic about working with other artists and arts organizations. Many had either worked with or were at least well informed about the goals, objectives, and services of other arts organizations in the Cincinnati area. Their enthusiasm for the value partnership programs is significant to provide validity to a primary question of the second part of the interview script in which they attribute communication as an important factor of building a partnership program.

Two major themes were identified from the interview data which helped to identify the traits and characteristics of building partnership programs: communication and flexibility. The strongest and most often referenced quality of building a successful partnership was an understanding and appreciation for communication among the participants. It is here that the interview subjects expanded upon the discussion contained in the literature by emphasizing the emotional aspect of communication between complex people and organizations. For the interview subjects, it was the positive relationships that were built among them that were vital to providing a successful flow of communication.

Beyond simple communication, the interview subjects identified the innate and important aspects of building communication by encouraging respect and empathy among organizations. “…an understanding of both the educational and artistic points of view and the culture of each organization.” (Jackie Quay, April 2000) The majority believed that building relationships, or networking with other arts organizations, was communication itself. This approach to building a partnership program is logical since it lays a foundation for all future projects and establishes a baseline for future communication based on trust.

The second most prevalent response by the interview subjects focused on the need for organizations to be flexible during the partnership process. “Be open minded towards the process and encourage creative thinking.” (Lorna-Kay Peal, April 2000) “Partners must be flexible enough to learn new tricks as everyone will be asked to do something that they are not accustomed to doing during the process.” (Dan Stacy, April 2000) The quality of flexibility may also be an important part in being able to build positive relationships since every partnership is the combination of two organizations with inherently different missions.

Interview subjects were in less agreement regarding the challenges of building partnership programs. Responses from the interview subjects fall into two general areas: administrative problems and relationship or communication problems. Administrative challenges include two difficult factors for the arts administrator building a partnership program to control: funding and time. Interview subjects agreed that there was a general lack of both and yet these factors were difficult to control on a daily basis. In addition to the basic needs of funding and time, other interview subjects also noted associated logistical concerns such as scheduling: “arranging common planning times at the school level that include arts specialists and all of the teachers of the same grade level is a challenge.” (Lauren Hess, April 2000)

The common thread of building positive working relationships and communication among the interview subjects was primary in their responses to both 1.) traits and characteristics of building a partnership program; and, 2.) challenges to building a partnership program. The responses of the interview subjects approach these concepts in both a positive and negative light. Other concerns related to relationships and communication listed by the interview subjects included:

1. Ability to communicate with everyone involved in the process from the very beginning so that people “buy-in” to the partnership.

2. Equal representation and equal voice of each organization.

3. Having empathy for each organization.

4. Supporting the elements of commitment to the process and trust in each other that each responsibility will be correctly achieved.

Evaluation methods mentioned by the interview subjects indicated a strong emphasis on the collection of simple anecdotal and diagnostic information limited to improving program efficiency. There was also an overall lack of statistical procedure in the data collection. Examples of anecdotal information were listed as letters from parents, e-mail messages, thank you letters, and verbal comments. Exceptions to this approach often contracted specialists in educational evaluation to assist in the process of creating useful methods for the collection and analysis of data. The Eastern Catholic Alliance for Schools for Excellence hired an outside specialist to design pre testing and post testing procedures for students, teachers and administrators and to analyze the collected data over a three-year period. ArtWorks, the Association for the Advancement of Arts Education, and the Education and Technology Division of WCET have also either contracted or continue to contract evaluation services from the University of Cincinnati Department of Research and Evaluation. Both of these formal approaches to evaluation have provided these organizations with statistical procedures that will allow them to track the success of their programs in the years ahead. ArtLinks has even embraced a blend of evaluation procedures including: 1.) formal steps to record student achievement on standardized tests, attendance records, and discipline reports; and, 2.) more subjective methods such as on-site visits, in-person interviews and evaluation forms.

Two similar themes from the literature and interview data were the role and function of communication and evaluation. Although both sources of data listed these qualities as important factors to building partnership programs all of them were different in their actual interpretation. To the interview subjects, communication was directly connected to the relationships that they built with the leaders of other organizations. Their viewpoint related to communication as important in part of a process-oriented (not goal-oriented) organization. The literature was unable to comprehensively expand on real-life importance of communication as being directly linked to building positive relationships that the interview subjects provided.

The greatest common ground was identified in the area of evaluation. In both the literature and the interview responses, the importance of evaluation for the success of their programs is minimally addressed. Evaluation is not addressed in a uniform manner in the literature and it was uncommon for an interview subject to list this factor in the second part of the interview. One notable exception was the Association for the Advancement of Arts Education, which listed as one of their six primary goals, "to develop assessment procedures that document the educational benefits of the arts and of Association programs." (Lauren Hess April, 2000) Methods of evaluation varied from subjective and anecdotal surveys of participants to well organized plans and procedures implemented by educational evaluation specialists. Evaluation was not significantly addressed in the literature.

Three differences between the literature and the interview responses were in the areas of leadership, funding, and flexibility. Interview subjects commonly listed funding as a challenge to building partnership programs. Interview subjects took for granted the necessity of quality leadership combined with supportive beliefs of trust and responsibility that help to build strong relationships. This interpretation was similar to that of the role that communication serves in building partnership programs by defining and strengthening human relationships. The literature centered on leadership as an authority-type model where a single dynamic leader can positively impact the results of an arts organization. Both interpretations of the factors of communication and leadership continue to reflect the out-of-date interpretation of the real-world environment in which these interview subjects work.

The concern of funding was not addressed in the partnership literature sponsored by the business community; only the Kennedy Center for the Arts listed “long-term funding” as an important factor for building partnership programs. The quality of flexibility was also frequently mentioned by interview subjects, but generally ignored in the literature. This may be another example of the real-world perspective of the interview subjects.

In general, the value of partnership programs is broadly accepted in the literature with concrete examples provided, but with a lack of real experience related to actual demands of the process. Interview subjects produced many additional perspectives and opinions that were not present in the literature. Even when an idea forwarded in the literature matched the interview subjects’ response in identifying aspects important to building partnerships, it is done in a limited and narrow fashion void of the details that the interview subjects provided.

The results of this project highlighted two recommendations for further study: 1.) additional study of the role and relationship of evaluation within partnership programs; and, 2.) a comparison of these results to a future inquiry of teachers and educational leaders who have also participated in a partnership program.

The role of evaluation within a partnership program is important to provide accurate measurement of program achievement that will influence future diagnostic adjustments and the solicitation of financial supporters. The subjective methods of evaluation commonly used by all of the interview subjects were likely sufficient to provide limited diagnostic data to improve their services. The real disadvantage of this type of data collection occurs in measuring to what degree the actual program objectives were achieved.

The well-documented measurement of program achievement is important to obtaining financial support from funding sources. Validating the goals and objectives of the partnership program supports the initial financial contribution and provides evidence for continued attention. Yet the importance of evaluation is generally ignored in the existing literature and by the interview subjects. Anecdotal evaluation was central to the methods employed by most interview subjects. Part of this complex situation is directly linked to the need to set clear goals and benchmarks for achieving them. Goals and objectives must be well-defined and measurable. With the current attitude in place, serious questions are not being asked such as:

1. Are the goals of each partnership program of primary or secondary importance to the overall design?

2. What methods will be used to measure the effectiveness of the partnership program?

3. How will statistical procedure be employed over a longer period to time to determine overall program effectiveness?

Standard textbooks do not accurately address the need for evaluation nor provide standard models of evaluation that could be applied. Evaluation is also connected to the challenge of funding which is another common trend listed by the interview subjects. Funding sources may be more motivated to support artistic initiatives if they have concrete proof that the planned goals and objectives were achieved. Both educational and artistic organizations have yet to embrace the role and relationship that evaluation should play in building partnership programs.

A logical extension of this project would be a study of classroom teachers and professional artists who have participated in educational-artistic partnership programs to determine if their new data matched or contrasted with the interview subjects of this project. In combination with the results of this project, the new set of opinions and experiences may provide an even greater sense of the characteristics necessary to build education-artistic partnership programs.

Ms. Tamara Harkavy, Executive Director

The Big Pig Gig

1310 Pendelton, M.L. #14

Cincinnati, OH 45210

(513) 333-0388 / (513) 333-0799

artworks@fuze.net

www.bigpiggig.com

Sr. Carren Herring, Fine Arts Coordinator

Eastern Catholic Alliance of Excellence

3727 Ledgewood Drive

Cincinnati, OH 45207

SrCarren@aol.com

www.volzcpa.com/ecase/

(513) 531-0720

Ms. Lauren Hess, Program Director

Association for the Advancement of Arts Education

655 Eden Park Drive

Suite 730 Cincinnati, OH 45202

(513) 721-2223

info@aaae.org

www.aaae.org

Ms. Lorna-Kay Peal, Director of Educational Activities

Cincinnati Art Museum

953 Eden Park Drive

Cincinnati, OH 45202-1596

(513) 639-2974

www.cincinnatiartmuseum.com/intro.html

Ms. Jackie Quay, SPECTRA+ Program

Fitton Center for the Fine Arts

101 South Monument Avenue, Dept. HP

Hamilton, OH 45011-2833

(513) 863-8873

jsquay@aol.com

www.walltowall.com/fitton/index.htm

Ms. Ann-Cushing Reid, Educational and Outreach Department

Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra

(513) 621-1919

www.cincinnatisymphony.org/education.html

Mr. Dan Stacy, Director of Education and Technology

WCET Television

1223 Central Parkway

Cincinnati, OH 45214

(513) 345-6582

dan_stacey@wcet.tbs.org

www.edtech.wcet.org

Ms. Linda Tresvant, Executive Director

CPS – P.O. Box 5381

Cincinnati, OH 45201-5381

(513) 475-4808

Professor Alan Yaffe, Arts Administration

University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music

(513) 556-9438 – office

(513) 2353 – home

Hello. My name is Glen Tuomaala and I am a graduate student in Music Education at the University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music. To complete my degree I am working on a project to identify and evaluate the traits and characteristic of successful educational-artistic partnerships. Your experience and advice would be of a great help in completing this project. Participation involves answering a short set of questions. Would you be willing to participate in this telephone interview?

PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Describe your position and general responsibilities:

2. Describe the goals and objectives of your organization:

3. In what partnership programs are you currently involved?

PART 2: CORE PARTNERSHIP QUESTIONS

4. What are the values (strengths) of partnership programs?

5. What are the challenges (weaknesses) of building partnership programs?

6. What are the most important characteristics of building partnership programs?

7. What methods are employed to evaluate the success of these partnership programs?

Thank you for your time and consideration. Are there any other individuals who you recommend for contact?

Ms. Tamera Harkavy, Executive Director - ArtWorks

PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Position and general responsibilities: Executive Director of Art Opportunities responsible for managing all artistic and administrative facets of the program. 2. Goals and objectives of the organization: ArtLinks was originally part of the Cincinnati Youth Collaborative since we shared the common goal of youth job training. It was, however, always our intention to eventually expand our services to the point where we would become an independent arts organization able to sponsor larger projects. Our two primary goals are: · Job training. Recruit talented teenagers (14 to 18 years old) to work as artists or in administration with the goal of promoting skill development such as teamwork, communication, problem solving, especially showing up on time. The fine arts build the complex skills necessary for many types of future employment. · Promote emerging artistic talent in the region and serve as a catalyst to connect sponsors with artists. One example of this is our "Big Pig Gig" Art Opportunities, Incorporated Mission Statement Art Opportunities, Inc.'s vision is to enhance our existing communities, using the arts as a vehicle. Education, job-training and hands-on experience will all play a role in fostering an environment that will increase opportunities to celebrate the talents of young people in the region. The mission of ArtWorks is to provide job-training, employment and mentoring for youth in the arts; to increase public awareness of the importance and benefits of arts and arts education; to foster cultural awareness; and to promote the Greater Cincinnati community. 3. Partnership programs currently engaged: · The Big Pig Gig is the primary program we sponsor. This program links selected artists with donors who underwrite the creation of a piece of art based on this theme. This piece of art is then presented in the community and later sold with the profits benefiting various arts organizations including Art Works. An arts organization in the city of Chicago also sponsors a similar program except they use fiberglass cows and we use fiberglass pigs. · Summer training workshops for high school students involve a selected number of talented local high school students assigned to work on art projects in the Cincinnati area. · We work with a wide variety of organizations including the Cincinnati Art Academy, Arts Consortium, Carnegie Center, Contemporary Arts Center, Taft Museum, Cincinnati Convention and Visitors Bureau, Cincinnati Park Board, Water Works, Drums for Peace, Jewish Federation, Mount Auburn Senior Center, Volunteers, Civic Garden Center, and the University of Cincinnati. PART 2: CORE PARTNERSHIP QUESTIONS 4. Values (strengths) of partnership programs: · Strengthens the arts community. United we stand, divided we fall. One example is the early relationship we built with the Art Museum and the Taft Museum since their reputation (history) brought credibility to our programs. It was also a symbiotic relationship as we could reach an audience that they could not and vice versa. · Tapping into new resources such as in the Cincinnati Art Museum which provides a new venue, links to other audiences, and promotes our organization all at the same time. · Creating new arts supporters by exposing new people to the fine arts. 5. Challenges (weaknesses) of building partnership programs: · Providing recognition to everyone who contributes in the form of signs, letters, a proclamation from the city, etc. · Combining the mission statements of the different organizations. Partnerships are a win-win situation if these mission statements and their intent can match. · Scheduling and arranging effective meeting times among all of the participants. · Funding. Having enough money to operate our programs. 6. Most important characteristics of building partnership programs: · Funding. Although a lack of funding usually makes organizations work harder and become more creative to still achieve their goals. · Bringing people together to work collaboratively. Accommodation and an understanding of their individual needs is also necessary. · Having a good idea! The good idea comes first. You must have a goal worth pursuing. · The quality of leadership and the personalities of the people you work with. Women are much easier to work with since they want to work together. This makes a positive difference. Is the leader a team-builder or a dictator? · Effective communication is always necessary. 7. Methods employed to evaluate the success of these partnership programs: Effective evaluation of our programs is always a struggle since we must answer to our funding sources. We want to make this a new priority in the future of our organization as long as we have the time to actually accomplish it. Most of our evaluation is anecdotal and measured with student questionnaires. In 1998 we contracted with the University of Cincinnati Department of Research and Evaluation. It was expensive, they did a good job, but the measurement tool they utilized was not effective and we have not contracted with them since that time. ArtWorks 1999 Apprentice Artist Program Evaluation ArtWorks 1999 Apprentice Artist Evaluation ArtWorks 1999 Teaching Staff Program Evaluation APPENDIX D INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Sr. Carren Herring - Fine Arts Coordinator - Eastern Catholic Alliance of Excellence PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Position and general responsibilities: Director of the Eastern Catholic Alliance of Schools for Excellence responsible for the designing and implementation of educational programs for those schools. Specific tasks of the position also include finding sources of funding, organizing teacher retreats, health and wellness programs, computer training, summer school programs, and special arts programs and projects. 2. Goals and objectives of the organization: Our goal is to add value to the individual school programs we serve. 3. Partnership programs currently engaged: We have worked with a variety of organizations from the Ohio Arts Council, Association for the Advancement of Arts Education, Dance Projects, and Meet the Composer to individual artists from the local area. · Dance Projects: three-year teacher training program including an artist-in-residence component. · Meet the Composer: six-year program of bringing composers into the elementary schools of the Eastern Catholic Alliance of Schools for Excellence. · AAAE Teacher Training Workshops. · E-CASE Individual School Grants assist local initiatives to include the arts in the school curriculum. Examples include subsidizing the cost of classroom materials, short-term artist in residence programs, music commissions, substitute teachers, and professional development for arts specialists in the schools. We have a limited budget available for these grants. PART 2: CORE PARTNERSHIP QUESTIONS 4. Values (strengths) of partnership programs: · The opportunity to develop and add to the existing skills of classroom teachers towards the goal of integrating the arts into the curriculum. · The learning process of professional artists working with students and teachers. · Unique performances for students outside of the normal school setting. These are all opportunities that individual schools could not achieve themselves without assistance and guidance. 5. Challenges (weaknesses) of building partnership programs: · Attitudes of classroom teachers towards the arts. Not all people view that arts as being central to a balanced education. Some school administrators, teachers, and parents believe that more time should be spent on "the basics" and less on arts education. Classroom teachers often must overcome a belief system that they are "consumers" of art and not "creators" of art. · Artist-teacher relationship. Not all artists are teachers nor are all classroom teachers committed to the value of arts education. · Professional arts organizations focusing more on the business aspect of making music than the educational goals. · Funding and time are always a challenge. Finding new sources of funding and convincing classroom teachers to "make time" to include the arts in their curriculum. 6. Most important characteristics of building partnership programs: · Building successful relationships with both artists and teachers. We work very hard to understand the self-interest of the other person and make an effort to "walk a mile in their shoes". Every partnership is a two-way street. · Flexibility. Being able and willing to adapt and change during the planning and the final process of the program. · Leadership. A strong leader (principal) at the top of an organization who can coordinate, but also serve as a model or mirror for the school is important. Enthusiasm, mutual respect for the process, and talents necessary to succeed is also vital. · Identifying with the attitudes of the classroom teachers who believe that they are not artists. Effort must be made to help these teachers "get in touch with the artist within". 7. Methods employed to evaluate the success of these partnership programs: Be clear of the educational goals of the project from the very beginning and state them in a measurable form. Ask yourself "to what degree were they met?" Most of our evaluation is anecdotal in nature with the use of portfolios, audio and videotapes, musical scores, journal entries, and the response of the audience at performances. We have worked with Dr. Cleveland, School Psychologist at Summit Country Day School, who served as an assessment consultant with our partnership program with Dance Projects. Dr. Louie Stevens of Arts Market, a national consulting firm based in Montana, has also assisted with designing evaluation tools. Re-Visioning Teaching 1999-2000 Third Year Assessment Outline Arts Project/1999-Pretest Arts Project/1999-Posttest Student Data Sheet Techniques Tally Sheet APPENDIX E INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Ms. Lauren Hess, Program Director - Association for the Advancement of Arts Education PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Position and general responsibilities: Program Director of the Association for the Advancement of Arts Education. Responsibilities are multi-faceted with administrative tasks such as recruiting schools into the program, designing brochures, planning professional development workshops, visiting school programs in progress, and coordinating existing programs. 2. Goals and objectives of the organization: · To help all students learn with and about the arts for two main reasons: 1.) as a learning tool inside of the curriculum; and, 2.) for the sake of art itself. Educational goals include grant writing, arts integration into the curriculum and integration of the arts into proficiency preparation. AAAE also serves as a catalyst for collaborations by sponsoring professional development workshops and advocacy events for parents and school administrators. · AAAE is the result of a comprehensive two-year study which greatly influenced two beliefs that shape our services today: 1.) the arts should be an integral and equal element in the general education of all students, and 2.) collaborative efforts between schools and professional arts organizations are key to the successful utilization of the arts in the educational process. · Other goals include: 1.) to establish close working relationships with and among educators, arts professionals and interested community members; 2.) to implement an arts education clearing house as an information, communications and planning forum for educators and arts professionals regarding needs, interests, resources and programs; 3.) to develop new programs at both the elementary and secondary levels that foster interactions between teachers, students, arts organizations and individual artists, both in schools and in art spaces; 4.) to develop incentives and recognition activities that enhance student and parent participation in the arts; 5.) to provide in-service training for teachers and school administrators to support the development of arts curriculum, both discipline-based and interdisciplinary; and, 6.) to develop assessment procedures that document the educational benefits of the arts and of Association programs. 3. Partnership programs currently engaged: · Arts Integration Mini-Conferences: a series of workshop sessions connecting the arts with other academic subjects such as math, reading and the sciences with the goal of improving student learning. · Tri-State Artist Showcase: the best professional artists and arts organizations in the Tri-State region preview their school programs for local educators. · Administrators’ Breakfast: a special event for local school administrators to listen to a renown guest speaker discuss how the arts can improve education in every school. · Parents’ Workshops on Arts Education: guidance on family arts offerings and how the arts can help all students achieve. · Sound Discoveries in conjunction with the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra · ArtWaves radio which is sponsored by the Cincinnati Public Schools and WVXU 91.7 FM radio. ArtWaves is by and for young people involved in the arts, grades K-12. The program is produced and hosted by students, and only students can perform on the program. The recording studio and editing facility is based out of Hughes High School. The program is broadcast the fourth Sunday of each month. · Directory of Professional Arts Resources. Each year AAAE publishes an extensive directory with detailed descriptions and contact information for hundreds of professional arts organizations that also provide educational programs. This directory provides local school programs with a means to directly communicate and arrange arts in education programs on their own. A similar directory is also provided for grant resources in the state of Ohio. · Lesson Plan Exchange. This on-line program provides lesson plans in a variety of academic areas to interested classroom teachers and administrators for free. · Cincinnati Art Museum and WCET Television is designing a creative kit of 20 lesson plans, handouts, an interactive web page, and a DVD focusing on the African Art collection at the Cincinnati Art Museum. Written by both teachers and artists, this project is scheduled to begin next Fall and is designed specifically for students in the rural areas outside of Cincinnati in grades four, five, and six. This program is still in the planning stages and does not have an official title. PART 2: CORE PARTNERSHIP QUESTIONS 4. Values (strengths) of partnership programs: · Ability to change the opinions of educators about the arts and to encourage them to use the arts on a daily basis. To look at he arts in a new way. · Partnerships bring out the strengths of each organization and allow these strengths to "shine". These combined resources are an asset. 5. Challenges (weaknesses) of building partnership programs: · Importance to define the roles and expectations of each organization as early as possible. Never assume anything. · Find a common ground of vocabulary (as in the work with Arts Connections) since different audiences have different histories with the arts; the same terms mean different things to different people. Communication will iron out arguments over vocabulary such as "Arts in Education" (a term used by classroom teachers) and "Arts Education" (a term used by professional artists). · Communication between artists and teachers so that each party understands not only their "world", but the "world" of the other organization. One example is the artist who is not familiar with how the school day is organized into periods, or that school starts early in the morning compared to their typical schedule. · Arranging common planning times at the school level that include arts specialists and all of the teachers of the same grade level. This scheduling problem requires special attention by the principal or the use of a substitute teacher on a limited basis. 6. Most important characteristics of building partnership programs: "Buy-in" by including teachers, parents and administrators in the planning process. Each individual school community will support the artistic partnership better if they have been involved in the planning process from the beginning. 7. Methods employed to evaluate the success of these partnership programs: The University of Cincinnati Department of Research and Evaluation is under contract to provide all of the evaluation needs of AAAE since our inception. This includes team evaluations and discussions, journal questions and written evaluations for teachers. Program Report Form Resource Membership Survey Arts in Action 1999 Evaluation Summary Evaluation of the Year 3 Arts Connections Program APPENDIX F INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Ms. Laurna-Kay Peal, Assistant Curator of Education - Cincinnati Art Museum PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Position and general responsibilities: · Assist Curator of education in charge of school/teacher programs with responsibilities to plan programs for students, educational programs for teachers. · Sponsor the "Evenings for Educators" once a month. · Sponsor four major teacher-training workshops. · Coordinate continuing education credit programs. · Coordinate the "Off the Walls" outreach program of six different traveling exhibitions: Museum Masterpieces, Art of Native Americans, Art of River Cultures, Art of African-Americans, Heroes and Heroines, and Animal Symbols in Art. This program brings high quality reproductions into selected schools for a month. · Liaison to three adopt-a-school programs: Art Links, Yo!Art!, and Art-Ability. · Organize the summer "Art Works" program for youth in the art world as a career. · Build new museum studies program for high school students as an option to AAAE. 2. Goals and objectives of the organization: · Educators must integrate the arts throughout their curriculum. · Make the museum a place where they love to come to learn and enjoyment. · Mission Statement of the Cincinnati Art Museum: we will actively engage a diverse and growing audience with great art for their enrichment and enjoyment. We will collect, preserve, study and exhibit art in accordance with the highest professional standards. We will operate the Museum in a fiscally responsible manner. 3. Partnership programs currently engaged: · We work with educators all of the time to contact directly, plan ideas together, brainstorm, take suggestions, etc. This is in addition to the relationship we have with our museum docents that must apply, train for 2 years and follow up with monthly training once accepted. · We communicate with AAAE and sponsor programs such as the "Evenings for Educators." We now have 20 teachers who attend the "Evenings for Educators" to write lesson plans, read and analyze cross-curricular research projects and interact with our staff and resources. · Continuing education credit is also now available via Wright State and Northern Kentucky University for teachers who attend a specific number of "Evening for Educators" workshops. PART 2: CORE PARTNERSHIP QUESTIONS 4. Values (strengths) of partnership programs: · Bridge the gap between teachers and artists and provide new options to become more successful. The field of arts is interesting since each of us is fighting against something: subject not given same amount of respect, danger of the arts being eliminated, art teachers working in a vacuum, administrators. · Networking helps to find some great people with new strengths. Learning more about individual teachers and then how to help them integrate the arts into their curriculum. · Sharing resources. Funding sources are continually looking towards organizations that work together and pool resources. A recent example is how we shared the cost of an arts specialist speaker by collaborating with AAAE. The Fine Arts Fund is not just Cincinnati but also Northern Kentucky; funding sources want to see collaboration across the river as well. 5. Challenges (weaknesses) of building partnership programs: · Many people with many agendas. The solution is to recognize this, build personal relationships so you can communicate well and then learn to compromise AFTER a firm relationship is established. School administrators often rank other pressing problems above the arts when if the original emphasis was correctly applied the arts may have been able to fix the current problems they now battle. · Limited dollars. · More ideas than resources. The solution is not necessarily to prioritize, but to really attempt to accomplish all of the possible goals. Set high standards of achievement; have a good attitude and don’t learn how to take "no" for an answer. The arts are far too important to kids. Missed opportunities are terrible. · Leadership is important within the individual organization more than bringing people together from other organizations. I believe in a "worker bee" mentality to leadership that the harder you work the more that will get done. You must believe in it. Communication among our partnerships may not be as in depth as it could be, but it has certainly not damaged us. 6. Most important characteristics of building partnership programs: · Respect what teachers do and listen to what they have to say. · Be open minded towards the process and encourage creative thinking. · In the very beginning, things work best when you bring food to meetings! 7. Methods employed to evaluate the success of these partnership programs: · Communicate the importance of evaluation to all participants on a regular basis. · Pass out and encourage participants to fill out written evaluation forms. · Listen! If they love something they let me know and then adjustments are made from there. It has to be worth their while, practical, and interesting to them as they have to go right back the next day to teach it. Make it enjoyable for the participants. Evenings for Educators Summer Institute for Educators Docent-Guided Tour Evaluation Visitor Quensionnaire - Masterpieces of American Furniture APPENDIX G INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Ms. Jackie Quay, Program Director - Fitton Center for the Fine Arts PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Position and general responsibilities: I am the director of two programs. SPECTRA+ is a locally developed, nationally recognized, school-wide, multidisciplinary arts in education program developed in 1991 by the Fitton Center for Creative Arts, the Hamilton City School District, and the Fairfield City School District, which is an approach to education that raises the level of arts opportunities for children in several elementary schools throughout Ohio, New York, and California. The SPECTRA+ approach adds dance and drama as subjects in the curriculum, taught on a weekly basis by either certified arts educators or teaching artists. Secondly, each grade level has a two-week resident artist who CO-plans with the teacher the direction of the residency. We try to honor the artists for what they do as professional artists. The residencies also serve as professional development for the teachers since they, too, learn new techniques and understandings. Third, the SPECTRA+ program looks to ways to integrate the arts across the curriculum and among the arts and other academics. Fourth is the professional development strand for classroom and arts teachers to learn strategies and pedagogy related to Integrated Thematic Instruction, Multiple Intelligence Theory and Practice, and Arts Assessment as well as hands-on arts classes (examples include things like papermaking, bookbinding, tessellation and Escher, composing songs or making instruments such as a dulcimer, learning to play it then teaching their students the cultural implications and history, value, songs; quilt codes of the Underground Railroad, etc.). The second major responsibility of mine concerns teacher professional development. ABCDE (the Arts Basic Center for the Development of Educators) was a regional professional development center housed at the Fitton Center to aid teachers with the awesome tasks of implementing a SPECTRA+ program, current educational trends, and state initiatives. The name has changed to Riverside Academy. We are a satellite graduate program of the University of Rio Grande now so we can offer a Master's of Education degree with a concentration in the Fine Arts and Multiple Intelligence. Our summer institutes used to be one to two weeks in length. This summer we will be offering four weeks of institutes, classes, and Internet classes. Our philosophy has not changed, just the way we do business. I still have an education committee who helps me decide what should be offered and by whom especially when it comes to trends and state initiatives. I do have to offer courses, however, to help the students earn their degree. It's really what I have been doing piecemeal for the last six years. Now the courses can count toward a degree that honors teaching as a profession. 2. Goals and objectives of the organization: As a community arts center, our goal is to build community excellence through the arts. My programs have the goal of building educational excellence through the arts. With that mission in mind, I strive to provide meaningful arts experiences for educators, creating learning opportunities for them that bring them together with professional artists and teaching artists, as well as professional arts educators for the purpose of improving the educators’ internal artist and influencing their teaching behaviors to include arts opportunities for their students. We give them a fresh set of eyes with which to see curriculum and open their minds to new ways of presenting old content. 3. Partnership programs currently engaged: Fine Arts Chair with the Southwest Ohio Regional Professional Development Center where I am the Fine Arts Chair and a few other things like Project REAP and as a Gaining the Arts Advantage promising site with Harvard. I am doing some collaborative work with the Association for the Advancement for Arts Education and the One Earth One People Project. I am also helping write a Javits grant with the Ohio Alliance, Ohio Arts Council, Ohio Department of Education, Ohio Gifted and Talented Association to identify artistically gifted underachievers in Ohio. Honestly, we are a small operation doing a lot of things with a small number of personnel. I can't possibly do more than I am doing right now. I am also the president-elect of the Ohio Alliance for Arts Education; a statewide collection of arts agencies promoting arts advocacy. In this position I work directly with the Ohio Department of Education. I have written music assessments for the state, designed workshops and institutes, provided assessments for School-to-Work, and am currently involved with the Coalition of Professional Associations writing type I, II, and III assessments in drama and music. I also offer training for artists who wish to be a resident artist. An additional program partnership is the Riverside Academy Summer Internet Courses with the University of Rio Grande. This partnership offers Master’s of Education degrees in the Fine Arts and Multiple Intelligences through internet and face to face courses at the Fitton Center during the summer and throughout the year. PART 2: CORE PARTNERSHIP QUESTIONS 4. Values (strengths) of partnership programs: All of what I do benefits the children in the schools because I am providing services to their teachers that match state and national goals for arts in education. The direct benefits for the Fitton Center are we are known as leaders in our field and looked to as a model. We have been offered many opportunities we would not have been offered had we not nurtured our many partnerships and collaborations. 5. Challenges (weaknesses) of building partnership programs: · The different agendas of the partners and sustainability. It's work to nurture and mentor a partnership and to even, dare I say it, compromise! When you work with schools, it is very difficult to be part of the decision-making team if you are an outsider. · Personnel too closely identified with the partnership so that it has no life of it's own, just that of the personnel. · Finding a partner with a similar goal is not hard. It's the rest of stuff that goes along with it like separate boards, bosses, and backbiting. 6. Most important characteristics of building partnership programs: · Respect for the artist for the artistic gifts he or she has. · An understanding of both the educational and artistic points of view and the culture of each. · That both the artist and the educational community have much to share with one another and can enrich one another. 7. Methods employed to evaluate the success of these partnership programs: Fortunately for the SPECTRA+ schools, we have always had a professional evaluator. The first three years of SPECTRA+ were evaluated and reported in The Schooled Mind, Do the Arts Make a Difference, by Dr. Richard Luftig. Dr. Luftig and I have just begun the second study to evaluate the program. We also have teacher surveys, observations, and check certain variables yearly but do not put them to any statistical procedure. These are formative measures used to adjust the program at each site. All sites have an on-site coordinator with whom I am in frequent conversation. Buildings raise their own money to support the program. Most buildings have a line item in their district budget to support the program supplemented by various combinations of Venture Capital, foundational, Ohio Reads, Ohio Arts Council, PTA, and Partners in Education grants. Methods include but are not limited to guided discussions based upon our goals and written objectives followed by a plan of action for improvement with designated personnel assigned to specific strands within the plan. We do meet face to face. The lines of communication are always open for minor adjustments. We do not use the Carver or Baldridge system as a model for improvement. I also use surveys and five-point Likert scaled assessments for specific program pieces and focus groups. Fitton Center for the Fine Arts Program Descriptions Vision Plan for the Arts Brochure SPECTRA+ Artist in Resident Evaluation ABCDE: Monday Night for Educators Evaluation Teaching Outside the Box Workshop Evaluation APPENDIX H INTERVIEW DATA Ms. Ann-Cushing Reid, Educational and Outreach Department - Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Position and general responsibilities: I have earned degrees in music business and music education and worked for two years as a production assistant for the orchestra prior to being promoted to my current position of which I have held for nine years. My official title is Manager of Educational Activities although my responsibilities include organizing and coordinating the Young Persons Concert Series, Cincinnati Symphony Youth Orchestra, Regional Pops Concerts in the Summer, Chamber Players Concert Series, and Sound Discoveries with the Association for the Advancement for Arts Education. 2. Goals and objectives of the organization: To build life-long relationships with the community by active participation in the arts achieved with concerts/services and partnerships with educational, social and artistic organizations in the community: listen, appreciation, advocate, perform, contribute. The benefits of our programs include an opportunity to perform (with the Cincinnati Symphony Youth Orchestra) and the opportunity to bring students and teachers to the symphony to hear and experience great music. 3. Partnership programs currently engaged: We are currently working with a variety of arts organizations including AAAE and the Cincinnati Opera in providing arts experiences here at Music Hall. We also work with local school children to provide performers for some segments of opera productions as well as local community musicians on a special event status. · Sound Discoveries is the primary program that coordinates educational and artistic programs with 20 school systems; five of which are enrolled in a more intense version that includes regular visits by orchestra musicians. Sound Discoveries is the responsibility of the CSO in partnership with AAAE with three main foci: "Music for Life" focusing on programs for the school and families; " Music for the Community" which is still developing, but may include out-reach performances; and, "Music for a Career" which currently includes the Cincinnati Symphony Youth Orchestra. PART 2: CORE PARTNERSHIP QUESTIONS 4. Values (strengths) of partnership programs: · The orchestra becomes "alive" to people who have never experienced it. · Forming relationships with musicians who visit schools on a regular basis. 5. Challenges (weaknesses) of building partnership programs: Not enough time (or people) to reflect on the partnership or evaluate during the pilot/building process. You have to include time in the schedule for these goals to make sure it has an impact. 6. Most important characteristics of building partnership programs: · Commitment and trust. You have to trust each school that they will build the necessary teams and schedule common meeting times as well as trust the classroom teachers that they are following the program. · Flexibility. Many ideas and concepts will sound terrific on paper, but may not work well under every situation or at every school environment. 7. Methods employed to evaluate the success of these partnership programs: · Prior evaluation was informal, but new methods include a formal written evaluation for teachers with an approximate 50% response rate after each program. · The Advisory Committee for Education (ACE) is an important tool for evaluation and feedback for writing lesson plans and guides as well as adding and refining Young Persons concert guides. ACE meets once or twice each year to revise the three-year cycle of educational programs. Cincinnati Symphony Brings Music to Children Sound Discoveries: Music for Life Mission, Goals, Objectives of the Educational Program Process Objectives Sound Discoveries: Music for Life – Levels of Participation Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra Teacher Evaluation APPENDIX I INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Mr. Dan Stacy, Director of Education and Technology - WCET Television PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Position and general responsibilities: Director of Education and Technology with three primary responsibilities: · Work directly with schools to design new technology opportunities inside of their curriculum. · Offer videotape programs on request and via Channel 48 to local school systems. · Write grants to expand our educational services. 2. Goals and objectives of the organization: Help schools achieve their individual goals using a strong technology base. Provide knowledge and experience to school systems as an enhancement to their curriculum in the form of video production, prepared programs for classroom use, and a well-developed web site for additional reference materials and increased communication. The schools decide their own curriculum; we support the technology needs of their teachers and students. 3. Partnership programs currently engaged: Joint project with WPDT Dayton funded by an Ohio Educational Technology Grant to design a learning project preparing students in grades 7-9 for the state math proficiency. This joint project will include the technological development of a unique web site and set of video programs applying real life experiences to the math proficiency requirements. PART 2: CORE PARTNERSHIP QUESTIONS 4. Values (strengths) of partnership programs: · Partnerships create new opportunities to learn from the viewpoints of other people. These new viewpoints make things happen by expanding the realm of influence. Expanding the knowledge base of brainpower and experience. More people involved in the process (within reason) also spreads the work around. These people are often specialists in the academic or artistic fields that we have little or no experience and therefore bring a large amount of knowledge and advice to the process. One example would be the work we do with classroom teachers who are experts at writing lessons plans where we are certainly not. · Funding. Grantwriting is difficult and more funding sources are searching to get more for their money by spreading their dollars around to more than one organization. 5. Challenges (weaknesses) of building partnership programs: · Finding an organization with a similar mission and building a strong relationship with them over time. Money doesn’t make partnerships successful; organizations with a similar mission working in the same direction make them successful. 6. Most important characteristics of building partnership programs: · Be certain that the differences between organizations can be blended/bended without becoming a barrier. Look for and focus on the common ground between the two groups and encourage this. · Find the “gatekeeper” of an organization in the initial phases of building a partnership. The “gatekeeper” is the actual person (regardless of title) that has the vision and authority to answer the difficult questions and commit their organization to the partnership process. · Don’t lose the mission of the partnership within the details of everyday work. The day-to-day administration, logistics, and viewpoints often have a tendency to blur the overall goal. · Flexibility. Partners must be flexible enough to “learn new tricks” as everyone will be asked to do something that they are not accustomed to doing during the process. · Leadership. Having the right people to work with that can see the common goal. People are more important than the process. · Being able to find a common objective even though that objective may change during the process. Both organizations must continually want the same thing. · Openness, honesty, trust, being up-front with information. · Communication and a lot of it. Communication must be a two-way street for everyone. 7. Methods employed to evaluate the success of these partnership programs: · Formal evaluation is achieved with a contract with the University of Cincinnati Department of Research and Evaluation (Ms. Carmen Wakefield: 556-3328 and Ms. Laura Wright: 556-1329). · Anecdotal evaluation is solicited from letters, e-mail, and personal comments. Partnerships add value to WCET and the community and donors are always happy to see WCET working together with other organizations. One example is the joint project with WPDT Dayton that changed the minds of many contributors who initially believed that one of these two public access stations should be eliminated. WCET Education & Technology Brochure HELP ME GROW Workshop Evaluation HELP ME GROW Demographic Information Sheet PowerPoint Workshop Evaluation APPENDIX J INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Ms. Linda Tresvant, Executive Director of ArtLinks PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Position and general responsibilities: Executive Director responsible for administration, coordination, funding (grant writing) of four arts-in-education programs that benefit students in 13 local districts. · Adopt-A-School: providing artistic enrichment with an artist placed in a local school for a two-year residency. · Art Bus: providing free transportation for students and teachers to arts venues such as the Cincinnati Art Museum or concert performances such as the Cincinnati Symphony. · Art-Ability: providing artistic outlets for children or adults with physical or mental disabilities. Currently serving nine care providers on a regular basis. · Yo! Art!: providing arts mentoring program for at-risk students. 2. Goals and objectives of the organization: Our overall educational goal is to improve academic achievement for at-risk students by using the arts as a vehicle for improvement 3. Partnership programs currently engaged: We work with a wide variety of arts organizations from individual artists to large organizations in the coordination of our four major programs and providing stipends for those artists. The four main programs we sponsor all have a partnership component in addition to regular communication with and partnership work with the Cincinnati Youth Collaborative (mentoring program), Inclusion Network, Uptown Arts (developing in the Over-the-Rhine area of downtown Cincinnati and targeting preschool to 10 year old children), "Safe and Drug Free" school programs and retreats. PART 2: CORE PARTNERSHIP QUESTIONS 4. Values (strengths) of partnership programs: Partnerships are the "best of both worlds." · Input. A variety of viewpoints during the partnership process is beneficial to everyone. · Building ownership. A lot of collaboration with a shared voice equals shared responsibility. Flexibility is also an important facet of building ownership. · Communication. To understand where people and their organizations are coming from. 5. Challenges (weaknesses) of building partnership programs: · Keeping everyone focused on the program and having the necessary time to make it all work. We try never to "force" a partnership program on people. · Administrative stress often created by the amount of work necessary to build and maintain these programs. This is by our own choice since we are the fastest growing arts organization in the State of Ohio having started with a budget of $37,000 three years ago and now reaching a total budget of $750,000 with 87.5% of our funds going directly to program costs. 6. Most important characteristics of building partnership programs: · Equal representation and an equal voice for everyone involved · Organizations and people who show an equal interest in the program · Good organization and leadership from people who are compassionate about what they do; this element has to be assumed from the very beginning. 7. Methods employed to evaluate the success of these partnership programs: · Statistical data on student academic achievement on standardized tests, attendance records and discipline scores are all collected on a regular basis to help measure the success of the programs. · Subjective forms of evaluation also include evaluation forms and interviews conducted once a year. · On-site visitations take place once every week to insure that the host schools are meeting the expectations of the program and to improve quality control. APPENDIX K INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Professor Alan Yaffe, Arts Administration – University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music NOTE: Although not directly involved in the administration of any single arts organization Professor Yaffe has served as a national consultant and teaches classes in arts administration at the University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music. PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Position and general responsibilities: Arts Administration faculty at the University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music. PART 2: CORE PARTNERSHIP QUESTIONS 4. Values (strengths) of partnership programs: Educators view the arts more and more as a means to achieve high proficiency scores instead of a suitable subject for study on its own. The arts are currently viewed as more of a quasi-extracurricular subject and at the secondary level it is very optional. With the onslaught of state and national standards, the arts have become a new tool to understand other subjects. 5. Challenges (weaknesses) of building partnership programs: · Perception and honesty. Both sides must be honest about what they want to accomplish within the context of each partnership. One example is the relationship that many professional performing arts organizations have with the educational community. The educators want the arts to integrate subject material into their curriculum while the performing art organization is much more interested in building a new audience base. The result is “plunket-art” where students come to the foreign environment of music hall to listen to the orchestra (even though research has proven that 70% of their current audiences have had direct involvement, not mere exposure to the arts). These groups must ask what the arts can and cannot do for them and be honest. · Professional arts organizations cannot be a substitute for arts teachers within a school system. They may strengthen the school system, but cannot replace them. 6. Most important characteristics of building partnership programs: · Artists who are trained to understand the educational process. Most professional artists have no experience or exposure to child development, school curriculum or appropriate programs to use with students. These artists must be taught these new skills. · Professional development for teachers that emphasizes the development of the arts within their curriculum. Most teachers are initially ignorant and even fearful of the arts. Once they are exposed to and nurtured to include the arts within their curriculum the results are often very positive. · Setting clear and assessable goals and objectives. Goals and objectives must be directly linked to evaluation including clear benchmarks for success that teachers and administrators will understand. This will only happen if arts administrators are truly committed to making a difference in the long-term investment of arts education. 7. Methods employed to evaluate the success of these partnership programs: Evaluation is necessary to gain the respect of and support from the sources of funding. This type of assessment should be internal and ongoing regardless of the actual program environment. One of the first questions I ask as an arts consultant is “what are your tools for evaluation and what do those results tell you?” When working with even veteran teachers I often must draw the comparison of asking them whether they would teach an entire unit on multiplication without giving a test. An example of a solution we created for classroom evaluation of a specific arts program was observation coding. A simple checklist of what we expected the students to say or do by a certain time in the program was composed. Teaching sessions were video taped and we compared the number of expectations reached within the structure of a larger portfolio approach. Evaluation is linked to continued sources of funding which is linked to setting clear and assessable goals and objectives. WORKS CITED Ackerman, Richard, and Paula A. Cordeiro, eds. Boundary Crossings: Educational Partnerships and School Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996. Allen, Sue Fay. "Building Harmonious Relationships." Teaching Music. 52 (October 1997): 33- 34. Anderson, Leslie. Public-Private Partnerships: Allies for the Arts. Monticello: Vance Bibliographies, 1988. Balick, Dana and Dennie Palmer Wolf. Interdisciplinary Learning Powered by the Arts. Portsmouth: Heinenmann, 1999. Blackall, Simon and Jan Meek, eds. Marketing the Arts. Paris, France: ICOM, 1992. Burgard, Ralph. Completing the Circle: State/Local Cultural Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, 1982. Byrnes, William J. Management and the Arts, 2nd ed. Boston: Focal Press, 1999. Cleveland, William. "Bridges, Translations and Change: the Arts as Infrastructure in 21st Century America." High Performance. 15 (Summer / Fall 1992): 82-9. Cleveland, William. "Common Sense and Common Ground: Survival Skills for Artists working in Communities and Social Institutions." High Performance. 16 (Spring 1993): 60-5. Cordeiro, Paula A. Connecting School Communities through Educational Partnerships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996. Dreeszen, Craig and Pam Korza. Fundamentals of Local Arts Management. Amherst: Arts Extension Service, 1998. Fargher, Catherine. "Community Arts in the U.S.: a View from Down Under." High Performance. 20 (Spring 1997): 27. Garone, Stephen. Business and Education: Dynamic Partners. New York: The Conference Board, 1994. Gee, Marie. "Yes in My Front Yard: Community Participation and the Public Art Process." High Performance. 18 (Spring / Summer 1995): 60-5. George, Laurel. Cross-Sector Partnerships and Corporate Involvement in the Reinvention of the National Endowment for the Arts. New Haven: Yale University Institution for Social and Policy Studies, 1997. Glotzbach, Robert Eugene. The Administration of the Performing Arts in Higher Education: the Relation of Organizational Structure to Program Goals. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1972. Gold, Gerard G. and Ivan Charner. Higher Education Partnerships: Practices, Policies, and Problems. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Work and Learning, 1986. Goodlad, John. Education Renewal: Better Teachers, Better Schools. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers, 1994. Greyser, Stephen A. and Douglas Schwalbe. Cases in Arts Administration. Edited by Thomas C. Raymond. Cambridge: Arts Administration Research Institute, 1975. Hirsch, Donald. Schools and Business: A New Partnership. France: The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 1992. Kerchner, Jody L. "A Model for Educational Partnerships." Journal of Music Teacher Education. 8, no. 1 (Fall 1998): 7-14. Levene, Victoria E. and William J. Buckley. A Bibliography on Arts Administration. Binghamton: State University of New York at Binghamton School of Management, 1977. Lund, Leonard. Beyond Business/Education Partnerships: The Business Experience. New York: The Conference Board, 1988. McCusker, Joan. "The Gibbs Street Connection." Music Educators Journal. 54 (November 1999): 37-39. McLaughlin, John T. Toward a New Era in Arts Education. New York: American Council for the Arts, 1988. Myers, David. Beyond Tradition: Partnerships Among Orchestras, Schools, and Communities. Atlanta: Georgia State University, 1996. Perlstein, Susan. Generating Community: Intergenerational Partnerships through the Expressive Arts. Brooklyn: Elders Share the Arts, 1994. ________. "Generating Community: Intergenerative Partnerships through the Expressive Arts." High Performance. 18 (Spring / Summer 1995): 24-7. Pick, John. Arts Administration. New York: E. & F.N. Spon, 1980. Pick, John and Malcolm Anderton. Arts Administration, 2nd ed. New York: E & FN Spon, 1996. Piscopo, Maria. "The Pros and Cons of Partnering." Communication Arts Magazine. 38 (September / October 1996): 52. Remer, Jane. Beyond Enrichment: Building Effective Arts Partnerships with Schools and your Community. New York: ACA Books, 1996. Reiss, Alvin H. The Arts Management Handbook; a Guide for those Interested in or Involved with the Administration of Cultural Institutions. New York: Law-Arts Publishers, 1970. Single, Nancy A. "An Arts Outreach / Audience Development Program for Schools of Music in Higher Education." Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1991. Shuker, Nancy, ed. Art in Education Partners: Schools and their Communities. New York: Associated Council of the Arts, 1977. Stolper, Carolyn L. and Hopkins, Karen Brooks. Successful Fundraising for Arts and Cultural Organizations. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1989. Taylor, Jennifer A. Community Arts Partnerships: Obstacles to Alignment, Factors of Alignment, Outputs & Possibilities. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1998. Tormollan, Carole. "Chicago Arts Partnerships in Education." High Performance. 16 (Summer 1993): 14-15. Watkins, Nayo and Barbara Malcolm. "The Partnering of Artists and Communities: New Methods Evolving in the Durham CAPP." High Performance. 16 (Winter 1993): 39-41. Zemel, Andrea. "Fine arts 349: Community, Collaborative, and Public Art" Art Journal. 58 no.1 (Spring 1999): 63-7. Greyser, Stephen A., ed. Cultural Policy and Arts Administration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.