With the intent of improving understanding of cuts to elementary arts programs, the purpose of this research was to investigate how one urban school district (Lansing School District in Lansing, Michigan) eliminated its elementary arts specialists. Research questions were (1) What policy conditions enabled the Lansing School District’s decision to cut its elementary arts specialists? and (2) How did the decision-making process unfold? This instrumental case study drew on policy analysis, and data sources included 18 interviews with former Lansing School District teachers, current employees, and community arts provider representatives as well as related documents and researcher memos. After coding for themes, I used the Advocacy Coalition Framework to organize findings by research question. Findings showed that a confluence of macro- and microlevel policy conditions enabled the cuts, including declining enrollment, budget problems, and a negative perception of elementary arts teachers facilitated by permissive teacher certification/assignment policies. Analysis also showed that the decision-making process was characterized by rival coalitions whose membership was defined by belief systems. Based on the findings, I offer critical reflection on a number of topics and offer general recommendations as well as implications for researchers.
AbrilC. R.GaultB. M. (2006). The state of music in the elementary school: The principal’s perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 6–20. doi:10.1177/002242940605400102
2.
AbrilC. R.GaultB. M. (2008). The state of music in secondary schools: The principal’s perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 68–81. doi:10.1177/0022429408317516
ArsenD.NiY. (2012). The effects of charter school competition on school district resource allocation. Education Administration Quarterly, 48, 3–38. doi:10.1177/0013161X11419654
5.
Arts Education Partnership. (2014). A snapshot of state policies for arts education. Washington, DC: Author.
6.
BarnyakN. C.McNellyT. A. (2009). An urban school district’s parent involvement: A study of teachers’ and administrators’ beliefs and practices. School Community Journal, 19(1), 33–58.
7.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas Accountability System. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231–268. doi:10.3102/00028312042002231
8.
BradleyD. (2007). The sounds of silence: Talking race in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 6(4), 132–162.
9.
BreslerL. (1994). Music in a double bind: Instruction by non-specialists in elementary schools. Arts Education Policy Review, 95(3), 30–36. doi:10.1080/10632913.1994.9936375
BurrackF. W.PayneP.BazanD. E.HellmanD. S. (2014). The impact of budget cutbacks on music teaching positions and district funding in three midwestern states. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 33(1), 36–41. doi:10.1177/8755123314521039
12.
ByoS. J. (1999). Classroom teachers’ and music specialists’ perceived ability to implement the national standards for music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 111–123. doi:10.2307/3345717
Center on Education Policy. (2006). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.
16.
Center on Education Policy. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Author.
17.
Center on Education Policy. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Author.
18.
ColwellC. M. (2008). Integration of music and core academic objectives in the K–12 curriculum perceptions of music and classroom teachers. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 26(2), 33–41. doi:10.1177/8755123308317954
19.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
DavisT. M.ArsenD. (2008). Building opportunity in low-wealth communities: State policies to fund school capital facilities (Brief No. 1). Lansing: Michigan State University Center for Community and Economic Development Urban Research.
21.
DeeT. S.JacobB.SchwartzN. L. (2013). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 252–279. doi:10.3102/0162373712467080
22.
ElpusK. (2007). Improving music education advocacy. Arts Education Policy Review, 108(3), 13–18. doi:10.3200/AEPR.108.3.13-18
23.
ElpusK. (2014). Evaluating the effect of No Child Left Behind on U.S. high school music course enrollments. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62, 215–233. doi:10.1177/0022429414530759
24.
FieldsW. M. (1982). Factors affecting the reduction or elimination of instrumental music in public elementary schools (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest dissertations and theses. (UMI No. 8308373)
25.
FitchettP. G.HeafnerT. L.LambertR. G. (2014). Examining elementary social studies marginalization: A multilevel model. Educational Policy, 28, 40–68. doi:10.1177/0895904812453998
26.
GerrityK. W. (2009). No Child Left Behind: Determining the impact of policy on music education in Ohio. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 179, 79–93.
27.
Government Accountability Office. (2009). Access to arts education: Inclusion of additional questions in education’s planned research would help explain why instruction time has decreased for some students. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
HoulihanB.GreenM. (2006). The changing status of school sport and physical education: Explaining policy change. Sport, Education and Society, 11(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320500453495
29.
JabbarH. (2015). “Every kid is money”: Market-like competition and school leader strategies in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 638–659. doi:10.3102/0162373715577447
30.
JacobB. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5–6), 761–796. doi:10.3386/w8968
KozolJ. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
34.
KvaleS. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London, England: Sage.
35.
LaJevicL. (2013). Arts integration: What is really happening in the elementary classroom?Journal for Learning Through the Arts, 9(1), 1–28. Retrieved from http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9qt3n8xt
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39.
LipmanP. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
40.
MajorM. (2010). How they decide: A case study examining the decision making process for keeping or cutting music in a selected K–12 public school (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3424622)
41.
MajorM. L. (2013). How they decide: A case study examining the decision-making process for keeping or cutting music in a K–12 public school district. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 5–25. doi:10.1177/0022429412474313
42.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171–178. doi:10.2307/1163728
43.
McLaughlinM. W. (1990). The RAND change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16. doi:10.3102/0013189X019009011
44.
MerriamS. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
45.
MerriamS. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MishookJ. J.KornhaberM. L. (2006). Arts integration in an era of accountability. Arts Education Policy Review, 107(4), 3–11. doi:10.3200/AEPR.107.4.3-11
49.
Moody’s Investors Service. (2015). Moody’s downgrades Lansing School District’s (MI) GO rating to A2; Outlook negative. Chicago, IL: Author.
ParsadB.SpiegelmanM. (2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 1999–2000 and 2009–10 (NCES 2012–014). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
RabkinN.HedbergE. C. (2011). Arts education in America: What the decline means for arts participation. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts.
56.
RozaM. (2010). Education economics: Where do school funds go?Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
57.
RutledgeS. A.NealB. G. (2013). “The numbers speak for themselves”: Data use and the organization of schooling in two Florida elementary schools. In AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. A.JacobsenR. (Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability: Data use and the transformation of American education (pp. 113–128). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
58.
SabatierP. A. (2007). The need for better theories. In SabatierP. A. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
59.
SabatierP.Jenkins-SmithH. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
60.
SaldañaJ. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
SalvadorK.AllegoodK. (2014). Access to music education with regard to race in two urban areas. Arts Education Policy Review, 115(3), 82–92. doi:10.1080/10632913.2014.914389
62.
SchneiderM.BuckleyJ. (2002). What do parents want from schools? Evidence from the internet. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024002133
63.
SchultzJ. R. (2006). Nice but not necessary? Educational leaders’ stories of the arts in an era of accountability (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest dissertations and theses. (UMI No. 3212929)
64.
SpillaneJ. P.DiamondJ. B. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality?Teachers College Record, 106, 1145–1176.
65.
SpohnC. (2008). Teacher perspectives on No Child Left Behind and arts education: A case study. Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 3–12. doi:10.3200/AEPR.109.4.3-12
66.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
67.
StakeR. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
68.
StoutK. E.StevensB. (2000). The case of the failed diversity rule: A multiple streams analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737022004341
Trafi-PratsL.WoywodC. (2013). We love our public schools: Art teachers’ life histories in a time of loss, accountability, and new commonalities. Studies in Art Education, 55, 7–17. doi:10.1080/00393541.2013.11518913
WatanabeM. (2007). Displaced teacher and state priorities in a high-stakes accountability context. Educational Policy, 21, 311–368. doi:10.1177/0895904805284114
73.
WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A.McQueenK. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37, 121–140. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00299.x
WisenbakerJ. (1976, April). Desegregation and white flight: A case study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
