In my previous post, I described an arts education trend called “coordinated delivery,” in which I discuss the roles of some of the key stakeholders in arts education. Over the past year, Americans for the Arts has been refining our thinking about the theme, “It takes a village to educate a child.”
While the term “coordinated delivery” includes all of the major players that make arts education happen in a single community, it falls a bit short in defining all of the stakeholders, including those at the state and national levels, such as funders or legislators.
The field of arts education is a complex network of partners, players, and policymakers—each with a unique role. After the work we did last year in investigating coordinated delivery, Americans for the Arts wanted to create something that demonstrated how all of these players interact, and to help arts education practitioners understand their relationship with other stakeholders in arts education.
So…we created The Arts Education Field Guide.
The Field Guide is a 48-page reference guide that captures information in a one-page format for each arts education stakeholder, from national down to local partners. Each page defines a constituency and highlights its relationship to arts education in several key areas: support, barriers, successes, collaborations, funding, and national connections. The Field Guide is divided into sections based on federal/state/local tiers, and each page provides information that will help readers understand a stakeholder’s motivations and connections in arts education.
The Field Guide utilizes the concepts from biology of a network or an ecosystem. When bringing this concept to life, we wanted a way to graphically illustrate all of the key players in the field of arts education. I used Google Images to find a representation of the word “network” and then worked with a designer to come up with the motif for our ideas. We also utilized the term “field guide” (the kind that a botanist would use when trying to identify a plant or flower), as a play on words of “the field of arts education” to come up with the title.
Let’s take a quick look at the diagrams in The Field Guide:
Tiers of Influence
The structure of our education system is often seen as a linear hierarchy, but each partner below has a different role and a different amount of influence. Your strongest ally is not always just one step above, below, or beside you. How can we build more relationships within and between tiers in order to help arts education thrive within this ecosystem?
Spheres of Influence
This representation of the arts education field flips the power structure by putting students at the center, and it illuminates possible relationships between stakeholders. Who is already in your network? What new connections do you see? Who can become your new partner or ally?
As you can see from the diagrams, the design of The Field Guide invokes the concept of a network through the connecting lines in the background, and the tiers and spheres that represent an ecosystem.
So, while my last post focused on the stakeholders closest to the students (teachers, parents, etc.), this ecosystem analogy pushes the thinking to include the broadest set of stakeholders that can affect arts education.
These last two posts have contained a lot of buzz words—‘coordinated delivery’, ‘ecosystem’, and ‘shared delivery.’ All of these terms describe how people are making arts education happen in their community. Arts education might look different in every community, but one phrase always rings true: “It takes a village…”
(Editor’s Note: You can download the high resolution [PDF, 2MB] and low resolution [PDF, 1MB] versions of The Field Guide or order a hard copy [48 pages, printed booklet] ($10 for members; $13 for nonmembers) from our Americans for the Arts Bookstore!)