Preservice Teachers as Policy Actors: Developing Policy Consciousness in a Student-Led Arts Partnership Program

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to consider how the experiences of nine preservice music educators who participated in the development of Project B impacted their understandings of and participation in policy. Project B is an after-school program that seeks to provide music education classes for children at several metropolitan elementary schools as part of an arts partnership program. Drawing from the four dispositions of policy consciousness, I considered how preservice educators grappled with their complex roles as policy actors within this setting. In particular, I focused on the dispositions cultivated by these preservice teachers as they developed this program, as well as the ways in which participating in the creation of this program impacted how they engaged as policy actors and leaders as inservice music educators. Participants’ experiences offer implications related to the importance of participating in contextualized policy-oriented experiences for preservice music educators.

Keywords

arts partnerships policy actors policy consciousness preservice music teacher education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aguilar

C. E.

Dye

C. K.

(2020). Developing music education policy wonks: Preservice music education and policy. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 29(2), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083719885335

Ball

Maguire

Braun

(2012). How schools do policy. Routledge.

Barrett

J. R.

(2020). Policy at the intersection of curriculum and music teacher agency. Music Educators Journal, 107(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432120939646

Behar

(2014). The vulnerable observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart. Beacon Press.

Bernard

C. F.

(2020). Lived experiences: Arts policy at the street level in the New York City Department of Education. Arts Education Policy Review, 121(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2018.1530713

Bowen

D. H.

Kisida

(2019). Arts education partnerships: Sources of harmony and dissonance with cultural institutions’ collaborative efforts. Cultural Trends, 28(5), 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2019.1679995

Burton

S. L.

Knaster

Knieste

(2015). Staying in tune with music education: Policy awareness among music education majors. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083714548587

Bylica

Schmidt

(2021). Crossing borders and taking risks: Supporting the music educator as policy practitioner. Arts Education Policy Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2021.1955424

Carter

Roucher

(2020). In their own words: Lessons from community arts partnership leaders. Arts Education Policy Review, 121(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2018.1530712

10.

Christensen

H. S.

(2011). Political activities on the internet: Slacktivism or political participation by another means? First Monday, 16, 1–10.

11.

Christophersen

Kenny

(2018). Musical alterations: Possibilities for musician-teacher collaborations. In Christophersen

Kenny

(Eds.), Musician-teacher collaborations: Altering the chord (pp. 3–12). Routledge.

12.

Colwell

(2011). Reflections on music teacher education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 10, 128–160. http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Colwell10_2.pdf

13.

Conkling

Kaufman

(2020). Equality and quality: The influence of private funds in public arts education in Boston and Baltimore. Arts Education Policy Review, 121(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2018.1530710

14.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE.

15.

Eikenberry

A. M.

(2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Volunteer Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 582–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009333686

16.

Frankenberg

Taylor

Merseth

(2010). Walking the walk: Teacher candidates’ professed commitment to urban teaching and their subsequent career decisions. Urban Education, 45(3), 312–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085908322651

17.

Hargreaves

Fink

(2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170308400910

18.

Honig

M. I.

(2006). New directions in education policy implementation. SUNY Press.

19.

Jones

P. M.

(2008). Policy studies as a component of music teacher education: Building the profession’s capacity for strategic action. In Leung

C. C.

Yip

L. C. R.

Imada

(Eds.), Music education policy and implementation: International perspectives (pp. 72–82). Hirosaki University Press.

20.

Jones

P. M.

(2009). Hard and soft policies in music education: Building the capacity of teachers to understand, study, and influence them. Arts Education Policy Review, 110(4), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.110.4.27-32

21.

Joy

Shields

Cheng

S. M.

(2019). Social innovation labs: A neoliberal austerity driven process or democratic intervention? Alternate Routes: A Journal of Critical Social Research, 30(2), 1–20.

22.

Matsunobu

Bresler

(2014). Qualitative research in music education: Concepts, goals, and characteristics. In Conway

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research in American music education (pp. 21–39). Oxford University Press.

23.

Merriam

S. B.

(1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.

24.

Nocon

H. D.

(2004). Sustainability as a process: Community education and expansive collaborative activity. Educational Policy, 18(5), 710–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904804269181

25.

Ozga

(2021). Problematizing policy: The development of (critical) policy sociology. Critical Studies in Education, 62(3), 290–305.

26.

Palmer-Wolf

(2000). Beyond outsourcing: Creating corridors of arts opportunity. Arts Education Policy Review, 101(3), 23–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632910009600251

27.

Patton

M. Q.

(2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. SAGE.

28.

Picower

(2013). You can’t change what you don’t see: Developing new teachers’ political understanding of education. Journal of Transformative Education, 11(3), 170–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344613502395

29.

Rowe

M. K.

Castaneda

L. W.

Kaganoff

Robyn

(2004). Arts education partnerships: Lessons learned from one district’s experience. RAND Corporation.

30.

Saldaña

(2021). The coding manual for qualitative research (4th ed.). SAGE.

31.

Schmidt

(2009). Reinventing from within: Thinking spherically as a policy imperative in music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 110(3), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.110.4.39-47

32.

Schmidt

(2017). Why policy matters. In Schmidt

Colwell

(Eds.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 11–36). Oxford University Press.

33.

Schmidt

(2020). Policy as concept and practice: A guide for music educators. Oxford University Press.

34.

Seidman

(2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers College Press.

35.

Shieh

(2023). “I don’t want to be helpless”: Learning policymaking with teachers. Arts Education Policy Review, 124(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2021.1900005

36.

Simons

(2009). Case study research in practice. SAGE.

37.

Spruce

Stanley

A. M.

(2021). Music teacher professional agency as challenge to music education policy. Arts Education Policy Review, 122(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2020.1756020

38.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Guilford Press.

39.

Stake

R. E.

(2000). Case study. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–454). SAGE.