Did consequential accountability policies decrease the share of visual and performing arts education in U.S. public secondary schools during the No Child Left Behind era?

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Taylor V. Gara, G. Farkas, Liane Brouillette
{"title":"Did consequential accountability policies decrease the share of visual and performing arts education in U.S. public secondary schools during the No Child Left Behind era?","authors":"Taylor V. Gara, G. Farkas, Liane Brouillette","doi":"10.1080/10632913.2020.1854911","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It has been asserted that the test-based accountability of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) increased instruction in tested subject areas reading and math, leading to reductions in arts education. We tested this using two waves of data, before and after NCLB implementation, in a difference-in-differences design. The analyses indicated that the total teacher workforce increased substantially during this time period, while the percentage of reading and math educators remained constant, leading to an overall increase in the teacher corps for these subjects. In contrast, the percentage of music and visual arts educators decreased during this period, leading to a decrease in their numbers. Average subject-specific teaching loads increased across all of these subjects. The result was substantial increases in the number of reading and math courses taught, combined with overall stability in the number of arts courses. However, comparisons across states with varying implementation of test-based school accountability prior to NCLB failed to show a relationship between such accountability and changes in the percentages and teaching loads of reading, math, and arts educators. Thus, at least in terms of cross-state comparisons, changes in these outcomes cannot be attributed to state-specific changes in accountability brought on by the introduction of NCLB.","PeriodicalId":37632,"journal":{"name":"Arts Education Policy Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10632913.2020.1854911","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arts Education Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2020.1854911","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract It has been asserted that the test-based accountability of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) increased instruction in tested subject areas reading and math, leading to reductions in arts education. We tested this using two waves of data, before and after NCLB implementation, in a difference-in-differences design. The analyses indicated that the total teacher workforce increased substantially during this time period, while the percentage of reading and math educators remained constant, leading to an overall increase in the teacher corps for these subjects. In contrast, the percentage of music and visual arts educators decreased during this period, leading to a decrease in their numbers. Average subject-specific teaching loads increased across all of these subjects. The result was substantial increases in the number of reading and math courses taught, combined with overall stability in the number of arts courses. However, comparisons across states with varying implementation of test-based school accountability prior to NCLB failed to show a relationship between such accountability and changes in the percentages and teaching loads of reading, math, and arts educators. Thus, at least in terms of cross-state comparisons, changes in these outcomes cannot be attributed to state-specific changes in accountability brought on by the introduction of NCLB.
在“不让一个孩子掉队”时代,相应的问责政策是否减少了美国公立中学视觉和表演艺术教育的份额?
摘要有人断言,“不让一个孩子掉队”(NCLB)基于测试的问责制增加了测试科目领域的阅读和数学教学,导致艺术教育的减少。在差异设计中,我们使用NCLB实现前后的两波数据对此进行了测试。分析表明,在此期间,教师队伍总量大幅增加,而阅读和数学教育工作者的比例保持不变,导致这些科目的教师队伍总体增加。相比之下,音乐和视觉艺术教育工作者的比例在这一时期有所下降,导致他们的人数减少。在所有这些科目中,特定科目的平均教学负荷都有所增加。结果是,阅读和数学课程的数量大幅增加,艺术课程的数量总体稳定。然而,在NCLB之前,各州对不同实施基于考试的学校问责制的情况进行比较,未能表明这种问责制与阅读、数学和艺术教育工作者的百分比和教学负荷的变化之间的关系。因此,至少在跨州比较方面,这些结果的变化不能归因于NCLB的引入带来的各州问责制的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Arts Education Policy Review
Arts Education Policy Review Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Arts Education Policy Review ( AEPR) presents discussion of major policy issues in arts education in the United States and throughout the world. Addressing education in music, visual arts, theatre, and dance, the journal presents a variety of views and emphasizes critical analysis. Its goal is to produce the most comprehensive and rigorous exchange of ideas available on arts education policy. Policy examinations from multiple viewpoints are a valuable resource not only for arts educators, but also for administrators, policy analysts, advocacy groups, parents, and audiences—all those involved in the arts and concerned about their role in education. AEPR focuses on analyses and recommendations focused on policy. The goal of any article should not be description or celebration (although reports of successful programs could be part of an article). Any article focused on a program (or programs) should address why something works or does not work, how it works, how it could work better, and most important, what various policy stakeholders (from teachers to legislators) can do about it. AEPR does not promote individuals, institutions, methods, or products. It does not aim to repeat commonplace ideas. Editors want articles that show originality, probe deeply, and take discussion beyond common wisdom and familiar rhetoric. Articles that merely restate the importance of arts education, call attention to the existence of issues long since addressed, or repeat standard solutions will not be accepted.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信