Defined as the tendency for structures and groups to “grow more alike, to develop similarities” policy convergence is a recognized factor in policy analysis across fields. In the arts education sphere, this can mean adopting similar curriculum standards, imitating an after-school arts program, or even borrowing a large-scale metropolitan arts education partnership model. I argue that policy diffusion helps to illuminate policy convergence in the arts education milieu. In this policy analysis essay, I first detail the conceptual underpinnings of policy diffusion. Next, I offer specific examples from arts education and attempt to show how they exemplify mechanisms of diffusion. I then argue that there are specific contexts/structures within arts education policymaking that facilitate diffusion, and I conclude with discussion based on the analysis.
AguilarC. E. (2011). The development and application of a conceptual model for the analysis of policy recommendations for music education in the United States (Publication No. 3456436) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
2.
American Music Conference. (1996). Standards implementation marches forward: Special report of the American Music Conference. Arts Education Policy Review, 98(2), 10–16.
BallS. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. Routledge.
12.
BallS. J. (2016). Following policy: Networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 549–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1122232
13.
BallS. J.ExleyS. (2010). Making policy with ‘good ideas’: Policy networks and the ‘intellectuals’ of New Labour. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930903486125
14.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
15.
BoothE.TunstallT. (2016). Playing for their lives: The global El Sistema movement for social change through music. W. W. Norton.
16.
CatalanoR. F.BerglundM. L.RyanJ. A. M.LonczakH. S.HawkinsJ. D. (2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 98–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203260102
CummingsA.StrunkK. O.De VotoC. (2021). “A lot of states were doing it”: The development of Michigan’s read by grade three law. Journal of Educational Change. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09438-y
DiMartinoC.JessenS. B. (2018). Selling school: The marketing of public education. Teachers College Press.
21.
DolowitzD. P.MarshD. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 13(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00121
22.
EdgarS. N.MorrisonB. (2021). A vision for social emotional learning and arts education policy. Arts Education Policy Review, 122(3), 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2020.1774830
ElpusK. (2013). Music in U.S. federal education policy: Estimating the effect of “core status” for music. Arts Education Policy Review, 114(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2013.744242
FergusonM. (2016). ESSA is more than the latest acronym on education’s block. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(6), 72–73.
28.
GaleyS. (2015). Education politics and policy: Emerging institutions, interests, and ideas. Policy Studies Journal, 43(S1), S12–S39. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12100
29.
GeeC. B. (1999a). For you dear—anything! Omnipotence, omnipresence, and servitude “through the arts” Part 1. Arts Education Policy Review, 100(4), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632919909599464
30.
GeeC. B. (1999b). For you dear—anything! Remembering and returning to first principles. Part 2. Arts Education Policy Review, 100(5), 3–22.
31.
GeeC. B. (2002). The “use and abuse” of arts advocacy and consequences for music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 103(4), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632910209600294
32.
GeeC. B. (2004). Spirit, mind, and body: Arts education the redeemer. In EisnerE. W.DayM. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 115–134). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
HanleyB. (2003). The good, the bad, and the ugly—arts partnerships in Canadian elementary schools. Arts Education Policy Review, 104(6), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632910309600975
HlavacikM.SchneiderJ. (2021). The echo of reform rhetoric: Arguments about national and local school failure in the news, 1984–2016. American Journal of Education, 127(4), 627–655. https://doi.org/10.1086/715037
38.
HorsleyS. (2014). Globally convergent accountability policies and the cultural status of state funded school music programs: A state-level comparison. Proceedings of the 17th Biennial International Seminar of the Commission on Music Policy: Culture, Education, and Media. https://www.isme.org/sites/default/files/documents/proceedings/2014-ISME-Policy-Procedings
39.
Illinois State Board of Education. (2017). Illinois State Board of Education state template for the consolidated state plan under the Every Student Succeeds Act. Author. https://www.isbe.net/Pages/ESSA-State-Plan.aspx
JabbarH. (2015). “Every kid is money”: Market-like competition and school leader strategies in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 638–659. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715577447
JordanA. G. (1981). Iron triangles, woolly corporatism and elastic nets: Images of the policy process. Journal of Public Policy, 1(1), 95–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00001379
KerrC. (1983). The future of industrialized societies. Harvard University Press.
49.
KimJ.YoungsP. (2022). How policy instruments explain implementation of teacher evaluation policies under local control. Leadership and Policy in Schools. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2022.2081214
50.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Longman.
51.
KosarK. R. (2005). Failing grades: The federal politics of education standards. Lynne Riener Publishers.
52.
KozaJ. E. (2006). “ Save the music”? Toward culturally relevant, joyful, and sustainable school music. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 14(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1353/pme.2006.0006
53.
KraftM. A.GilmourA. F. (2017). Revisiting the widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17718797
National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. (n.d.). The status of arts standards revision in the United States since 2014. Author. https://www.nationalartsstandards.org/map
PrinceR. (2010). Policy transfer as policy assemblage: Making policy for the creative industries in New Zealand. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 42(1), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4224
RavitchD. (1995). National standards in American education: A citizen’s guide. The Brookings Institution.
72.
ReckhowS.SnyderJ. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14536607
73.
ReckhowS.Tompkins-StangeM. (2015). Singing from the same hymnbook: Education policy advocacy at gates and broad (Working Paper). The Education Policy Center at Michigan State University.
74.
RenzulliL. A.RoscignoV. J. (2005). Charter school policy, implementation, and diffusion across the United States. Sociology of Education, 78(4), 344–365.
SabatierP.Jenkins-SmithH. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press.
78.
SchmidtP. (2009). Reinventing from within: Thinking spherically as a policy imperative in music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 110(4), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.110.4.39-47
79.
SchmidtP. (2020a). Developing our policy know-how: Why policy should be part of music educator identity. Music Educators Journal, 107(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432120929072
80.
SchmidtP. (2020b). Policy as practice: A guide for music educators. Oxford University Press.
81.
ScottJ.JabbarH. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327
ShawR. D. (2018). The vulnerability of urban elementary school arts programs: A case study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65(4), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429417739855
84.
ShawR. D. (2019). Examining arts education policy development through policy frameworks. Arts Education Policy Review, 120(4), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2018.1468840
85.
ShawR. D. (2020). How music education policies come to be and what teachers can do. Music Educators Journal, 107(1), 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432120945011
86.
ShawR. D.BernardC. F. (2022, November3). Appraising metropolitan arts education plans: A policy analysis [Conference presentation]. NAfME Research and Teacher Education Conference, Washington DC.
87.
ShiehE. (2021). “I don’t want to be helpless”: Learning policymaking with teachers. Arts Education Policy Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2021.1900005
ShippsD. (2011). The politics of educational reform: Idea champions and policy windows. In MitchellD. E.CrowsonR. L.ShippsD. (Eds.), Shaping education policy: Power and process (pp. 225–248). Routledge.
90.
StoneD. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision-making (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
91.
StoneD. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281–300.
92.
StoneD. A. (2001). Learning lessons, policy transfer and the international diffusion of policy ideas (Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation Working Paper, No.69/01). University of Warwick.
93.
TrethewayN. (2021). Congressional briefing: The value of arts education [webinar recording]. American Academy of Arts and Sciences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQiFLpBZYJc
WeberM. S.YanovitskyI. (2021). Knowledge brokers, networks, and the policymaking process. In WeberM. S.YanovitskyI. (Eds.), Networks, knowledge brokers, and the public policymaking process (pp. 1–25). Palgrave MacMillan.
96.
WilliamsonB. (2012). Centrifugal schooling: Third sector policy networks and the reassembling of curriculum policy in England. Journal of Education Policy, 27(6), 775–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2011.653405
97.
WongK. E.LangevinW. E. (2007). Policy expansion of school choice in the American states. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2/3), 440–472.
98.
ZesersonK.WelchG. (2017). Policy and research endeavors. In SchmidtP.ColwellR. (Eds.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 65–84). Oxford University Press.
