Literature Review

Policy and History

Federal educational policy has shifted through the years - starting with the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to the most recent authorization Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015 signed by President Obama (ed.gov). The original ESEA, signed during the Civil Rights era, noted a need to create state run programs to address creating better educational opportunities for all students (ed.gov). 

Each new reauthorization, built upon and amended the previous policy, reimagining new ways to address the achievement gaps among students (ed.gov). The “spirit” of the original ESEA policy was rooted in civil rights where all students have access to educational achievement opportunities (ed.gov). The later reauthorizations - NCLB and ESSA - furthered that spirit by creating systems of accountability for schools to meet expectations to close achievement gaps (ed.gov). These changes in educational policy seem to indicate that increased accountability of schools would help close achievement gaps - but how are schools being held accountable and what indicators or measurements are we using to figure out if gaps are being closed? Do these measures truly address and solve the achievement gaps for students - especially our most vulnerable students? 

The NCLB reauthorization in 2001 created concrete systems of accountability for schools and larger federal oversight in reporting school achievement progress. In order to receive federal dollars, NCLB required schools to measure Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) based on student outcomes on standardized test scores for Language arts and Math subjects, which determined how much funding schools then received (Beveridge, 2010). Schools that could not meet the standards within the yearly allotted time could face penalties and greater oversight till progress was achieved satisfactorily (Beveridge, 2010; Chapman, 2007; Dupre, 2018). For schools that fail to meet the standards set by policy, they often need to use their own funds to meet AYP benchmarks or risk losing funding altogether - putting pressure on schools to pull all resources to create better student outcomes on tests (Beveridge, 2010). It is reasonable to assume the AYP based funding structure can create challenges for schools that are limited in their resources while also compounded by the federal oversight received if they do fail standards - creating a situation in which schools have to pick and choose what is more “valuable” for a student's overall education. The failure here is that policy makers did not consider the resource equity challenges of schools in the creation of NCLB. Control was removed from more localized school boards to federal mandates, schools had to meet arbitrary standards with little regard to their student populations and the resources schools had access to. The language of NCLB sought to create equality in student outcomes across the board with no room for excuses, without considering the individual challenges schools faced (Chapman, 2007). How can policy be created to close achievement gaps for the most vulnerable of schools while punishing them for not having the resources to adequately meet these outcomes?

In a 2015 comprehensive report on the ESSA, Education Week (2015) explains many of the specific shifts the policy underwent when No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was reauthorized under the Obama administration in 2015 as Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). A major change in ESSA was the shift of control from federal to state - where federal policy became guidelines for state specific ESSA plans for schools. In these plans, States create educational plans based on federal ESSA guidelines and submitted for approval - plans that detail how states will set up accountability measures, creating short and long term goals that address the achievement gaps of specific student groups such as English Language Learners through specific areas like test proficiency, graduation rates and English language proficiency. The accountability measures for schools are a holdover from NCLB, requiring that student achievement be measured by outcomes on State standardized tests. Included in the State ESSA plans were ways to identify low performing schools and develop interventions to support those schools. The goals of the ESSA policy were to provide students with a “well-rounded” education that included college & career readiness and expanded arts education provisions. However, the language of the policy remained open and up to state and local interpretation, along with an accountability structure still based on student outcomes on standardized tests (Education Week, 2015). Does the ESSA do enough to address the challenges that schools have been dealing with - or does it repackage the same NCLB framework without addressing the inequities in resources by passing on accountability for states to manage? 

The NCLB and ESSA brought greater accountability measures for schools to address achievement gaps for all students by linking student outcomes to funding received from the federal government. The problem that began to arise with NCLB was that a high stakes testing culture emerged in schools - where schools became so focused on students' scores in order to receive much needed federal money (Beveridge, 2010). The high stakes testing culture in schools created negative ripple effects for any areas that were not included in testing outcomes linked to school funding (Beveridge, 2010). Subjects not tested - labeled as “non-core” subjects became the first sacrifices to the AYP accountability system as schools directed majority of funding and resources to “Core” subjects such as English and Math, leaving little funding incentive for administrators to develop or support programs of non test subjects - particularly in the arts (Beveridge, 2010). The lack of funding incentive for “non-core” subjects like the arts permeates into other areas necessary for any successful arts program - such as instructional materials, dedication to the program and scheduling of classes (Beveridge, 2010). The lack of incentives for non tested subjects seems to indicate how policy is worded can have a major effect on how school’s administrators implement and distribute resources for programs based on what has been indicated as “valuable” by the policy itself. The high stakes testing, pressure for schools to make AYP and the how policy interpreted when implemented had adverse effects on schools where test prep drills became the focus of curriculum and teacher practice (Chapman, 2007). In particular, schools with minority and disadvantaged groups, the allocation of resources focused on improving data, sometimes by ethically questionable practices to meet necessary data outcomes (Chapman, 2007). Art programs found themselves at the mercy of inconsistent scheduling - where students could be pulled out to be replaced with a math or English course, used as incentive or punishment for students to perform better in core classes and arts teachers pushed to include testing strategies into their curriculums (Beveridge, 2010). Both the ESSA and NCLB include some language for arts education - include the arts as a “Core” subject in the NCLB and a part of a “well-rounded education” in the ESSA (Education Week, 2015; Chapman, 2007). This seems to indicate that the arts have value and are necessary to providing a comprehensive educational experience to students. The issues with how policy interpretation affects resource distribution is more common in the at-risk schools, where their students generally benefit most from having a diverse educational experience that doesn't only emphasize tested subjects and their outcomes (Beveridge, 2010). Should educational policy only focus on improving achievement gaps in select areas, narrowing what students can have access to beyond the classroom? Why is it that our most vulnerable students lose out on having the “well rounded” education that the spirit of the ESSA wants for its students? The ESSA, like many other policies, are written to be “color-blind”, but in practice these policies are interpreted and implemented in ways that disproportionately work against students of color (Beachum, 2018). Can the ESSA or any educational policy language acknowledge the racial disparities occuring in how resources are secured for students and what their educational experiences include or not include? Can educational policy be truly neutral when schools do not have equity in their resources? Policy makers have to consider if their policy actually addresses student and educator needs rather than all schools meeting arbitrary standards that may not be possible for schools to meet. 

Critical Race Theory in PK-12 Education and Arts Education

Federal Educational policies' - Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001 and the most recent Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015 - goals were to create equal education opportunities for all students. However, years after the passing of these policies, student achievement gaps continue to be overwhelming disproportionate for students of color in comparison to their White student counter parts in public education (Gillborn & Ladson-Billings, 2010; Dixson & Rousseau, 2005; Howard & Navarro, 2016; Beachum, 2018; Kraehe, Acuff & Travis, 2016). If educational policies - particularly the latter NCLB and ESSA - were developed to address student achievement gaps, why are students of color still not receiving the equal educational opportunities and closing achievement gaps as hoped for in the passing of these policies? Have these policies truly addressed the inequities students of color particular in low income and urban schools continue to deal with? The United States has a long history in which people of color have dealt with years of systemic sociopolitical, economic and educational inequities (Gillborn & Ladson-Billings, 2010; Dixson & Rousseau, 2005; Howard & Navarro, 2016; Beachum, 2018; Kraehe, Acuff & Travis, 2016.) It is reasonable to assume that policy makers have not explicitly considered this history when considering the needs of students of color in the creation and writing of their policies - taking on a more “colorblind” approach to writing legislation - while not truly addressing the educational inequities for students of color. Policy makers and educational stakeholders must contend with this history and utilize Critical Race Theory (CRT) to reimagine educational spaces, policies and practices to dismantle the systemic racial inequities that continue to disportionality affect students of color (Howard & Navarro, 2016; Beachum, 2018; Kraehe, Acuff & Travis, 2016). 

Critical Race Theory was originally developed by legal scholars in the 1970s as a way to critically examine how race and racism play a fundamental role in social systemic structures of the United States in which racism is not an aberrant phenomena but a deeply ingrained aspect of American society and institutions (Gillborn & Ladson-Billings, 2010; Howard & Navarro, 2016; Dixson & Rousseau, 2005). By the 1990s CRT was extended to the educational field by examining educational practice and policies through this critical race lens (Gillborn & Ladson-Billings, 2010; Kraehe, 2015). The goals for critical race theory in education was to provide a framework to disrupt and dismantle the notions of colorblindness and neutrality in educational policy and practice by directly addressing the ahistorical language of educational structures such as policy and practice - that continue to widen achievement gaps of students of color (Howard & Navarro, 2016). The five tenets that make up the framework of CRT are as follows: Centrality of race and racism - in which race is a ingrained aspect of American society and institutions; challenging the dominant perspective - using “counter-narratives” to give voice to marginalized experiences; commitment to social justice - working beyond theory to actionable changes; valuing experiential knowledge - in which non-dominant voices and their experiences are seen as necessary and important to the work; being interdisciplinary - recognizing intersectionality and that narratives are not singular entities but layered sections of identity such as gender, class or sexual orientation (Howard & Navarro, 2016). By utilizing this framework, policy makers and educational stakeholders can reevaluate their policies and practices to better serve students of color - starting with the policies that create the structures, guidance for school organization, funding, teacher practice and professional development (Howard & Navarro, 2016; Kraehe, 2015; Kraehe, Acuff & Travis, 2016). 

The language of educational policy has been “colorblind” or “colormute” - where policy language does not directly address social inequities created by the deeply ingrained racism of American institution and society (Gillborn & Ladson-Billings, 2010; Dixson & Rousseau, 2005; Beachum, 2018; Kraehe, Acuff and Travis, 2016; Kraehe, 2015).  However well meaning, this colorblind approach to policy writing continues to uphold white supremacy and fails to address real concerns of achievement for students of color (Kraehe, 2015). NCLB’s goals were to improve student achievement through standards based methods - like testing, scripted curriculums and adopting corporate practices to increase accountability for schools to demonstrate increased positive student outcomes - unfortunately with little effect on the growing achievement gaps for marginalized students (Howard & Navarro, 2016). The standardized and regulatory curriculums created due to policy - particularly in testing and educational practice - solidifies a dominant voice and culture in education (Beachum, 2018, p. 3). The NCLB policy did little to address inequities such as “... structural inequality, poor teacher quality, lack of cultural relevance in school instruction and racial desegregation of the nation’s schools” (Howard & Navarro, 2016, p. 255). Instead, schools that failed to meet standards set by policy were further punished and pressured to make up the loss with their own limited funds - which primarily affects schools with majority low income and students of color (Howard & Navarro, 2016; Kraehe, Acuff & Travis, 2016). Arts programs in particular saw a decrease in access and programming and its removal used as a punitive tool for schools who failed to meet desired student outcomes with the hope that it would improve standardized testing scores - the removal did not improve test scores (Kraehe, Acuff & Travis, 2016). It is reasonable to assume that schools with adequate funding can and usually meet policy standards, but underfunded schools - who generally have a larger low income and students of color population will continue to have difficulties meeting policies standards because of other factors that policy fails to address - furthering the cycle of punitive measures like removing arts classes and dismantling a student’s right to a full and well rounded education. If policymakers continue to disregard the CRT framework when approaching policy making - achievement gaps between students of color and their White counterparts will continue to increase especially in the arts. Schools that serve majority students of color, usually in urban areas, are consistently underfunded and under resourced - resources such as adequate funding for instructional materials, decreases in funding allotments for and access to arts programs, lack of qualified arts instructors and general lack of public investment into these schools (Kraehe, Acuff & Travis, 2016; Katz-Buonincontro, 2018; Beachum, 2018). Ultimately, equity in arts education can provide a measure of whether policies either promote or hinder equitable practices as it “...illustrate(s) the discriminatory consequences of a policy that explicitly abdicates equal access to arts instruction for particular populations of students” (Kraehe, Acuff & Travis, 2016, p. 230). 

Part of dismantling social inequities in education also require rexaming teacher preparation, practice, and professional development created by educational policy - examining whether or not these areas are addressing inequities or compounding them (Simpson, 1995; Kraeche, 2015; Kraehe, Acuff & Travis, 2016; Howard & Navarro, 2016). How can policy better support educators be more prepared to address social inequities in their preparation, practice and professional development? Preservice teacher preparation programs and in service teacher professional development need to translate theory into practice allowing educators the time and structure to understand the deep rooted issues of race and racism, develop their own racial consciousness and how racial inequities can play out in their classrooms, schools, practices and policies (Howard & Narvarro, 2016). NCLB created a high stakes standardized testing environment that pushed prescribed teaching practices that marginalized inclusive approaches and reduced the creative abilities of educators to meet student needs, compounding achievement gaps for students of color (Howard & Narvarro, 2016). Howard & Navarro (2016) discuss how through a CRT lens preservice teacher preparations should allow for educators to critically reflect on how educators are implicated in the racialized and gendered histories of America, make race and race history part of the curriculum by fighting for its maintenance; empower and provide materials for educators to teach race as structural and systemic construct - understanding how different outcomes for students are institutionally embedded not reducible to their identities and finally, working to understand race not as a personal crusade but as a sociohistorical construct through which we are all (unequally) produced. If teacher preparation and professional development continue to ignore the sociocultural inequities in educational practice and policies - they risk becoming tools that reinforce white supremacy and the dominant culture in schools (Kraehe, 2015). Policy makers, educators, administrators and research scholars must take the time to reexamine how they understand the issues in education - particularly for students of color where gaps in achievement must be closed - our policies and practices must do more to address these concerns. 

Funding and Supports

Arts programs' success in schools can be affected by the funding and support the program is receiving by the school and district. Funding and support can determine the success of any program because they provide the resources necessary to create a comprehensive program for all students (Miksza, 2013; Bobick & Dicindio, 2012; Katz-Buonincontro, 2018; Slavkin & Crispin, 2000). How schools receive funding also tells us how these things are determined and who receives these supports. For example, “core” subjects such as English and Math tend to receive more funding and support due to its role in determining a school's progress and the funds that are awarded based on the progress in these areas (Beveridge, 2010). This is important because the question for policymakers is - does our public education policy provide the ‘well-rounded’, equitable and comprehensive education for our most vulnerable students when funding structures focus on a small subset of their overall education?

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and its predecessor, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), are federal programs outlining how funding from the federal government would be given to schools, the conditions for receiving federal funds, and the amount of federal dollars schools would receive (Education Week, 2015). The funding structure of the ESSA and NCLB is important to understand because it influences how school leaders structure their own resource allocations within their schools. The funding structure of ESSA/NCLB creates an irony for the most vulnerable of our schools who may have resource inequities - how can underfunded schools meet the narrow standards set by these policies to receive the much needed funding for their school? Do our policies allow for our most vulnerable schools and students to get a full education that includes the arts - something they might only receive for free in public education. 

Under the ESSA and NCLB education policy, funding is often linked directly to student performance on standardized tests. Standardized tests are used to measure student performance in specific “core” subjects, such as Math and English, funding is given based on the growth seen in these areas (Education Week, 2015; Dupre 2018; Beveridge 2010; Slavkin & Crespin, 2000). The problem with this funding model is that in order to receive much needed revenue from the federal government, schools must focus their resources into boosting test scores for these areas. Because the arts are not included into these data measurements it is likely they are not seen as a priority to fund or support within school organizational plans (Slavkin & Crespin, 2000). The lack of priority for the arts becomes a challenge particularly in underfunded schools who may have to use their own limited resources to make up for the achievement gaps and leaving arts programs and educators with limited financial support to deliver quality instruction and resources for their students. Without specific language in policy for the arts has major impacts on what support is allocated for arts programs and how arts teachers can feel marginalized within their schools (Stokes-Casey & Elliot, 2019). There has been a 84% decrease in spending on public arts education in NYC from 2006 -13 and a decrease in access to quality visual arts curriculum - such as supplies for students and curriculum materials for educators (Katz-Buonincontro, 2018, p.35).  The yearly shifting budgets of schools based on progress made from the previous school year, means funding to arts programs fluctuates based on individual principals’ priorities and the needs for the school (Katz-Buonincontro, 2018, p.35). Advocates for public arts education note that funding, qualified staff and instructional time is key to any comprehensive arts program because it increases positive student experiences and interests in arts programs (Miksza, 2013, p.25). Most importantly, support from school community stakeholders like administration can determine the success of any arts program because the administrator can provide adequate planning time and allocation of resources to the arts program (Miksza, 2013; Bobick & DiCindio, 2012; Katz-Buonincontro, 2018; Slavkin & Crespin, 2000). 

Quality comprehensive arts programs need support from the administrators and school board, consistency in the school leadership dedicated to a vision of continued arts programs, art specialists teachers with continued arts professional development and opportunities for leadership (Miksza, 2013). High school principals note that student interests in arts programs relate directly to whether the programs have adequate resources (Miksza, 2013). Schools that had more support from stakeholders tended to have more adequate funding, resources, instructional time and staffing necessary for their arts programs. Student interests and whether the arts were included in GPA requirements in the arts were also indicators of positive program outcomes (Miksza, 2013). Arts educators and their colleagues are working towards the goal of educating students to be well rounded action oriented individuals beyond the classroom but are faced with challenges such as administrative issues and budgeting compounded by the policies that dictate these factors (Stokes-Casey & Elliot, 2019). The ESSA and NCLB policy language has few specific references related to the arts which gives leeway to the states, districts and school administrators on how they interpret arts priorities and resources to the arts program (Stokes-Casey & Elliot, 2019). The language in the NCLB created the labels of “core” and “non core” subjects, which subjects that were not tested and therefore had no funding incentives became less important to administrators (Stokes-Casey & Elliot, 2019).  Art education tends to use portfolio, performance based assessments which deviate from the “norm” created by educational policy that focuses on measuring student growth through standardized assessments that are specific and easily measured (Stokes-Casey & Elliot, 2019). Making and teaching art does not “involve the use of rigid laws or practices that can be applied to all students with ‘predictability and consistency’”, making it difficult for administrators to define the work arts educators do in the standards set by policy (Stokes-Casey & Elliot, 2019). Without clear definitions or considerations for the arts in the ESSA, educators and the art programs can tend to fall into the ‘other’ category when organizing priorities for schools. The “othering” of arts professionals can manifest in how arts programs are scheduled to make room for “real” learning or tested “core” subjects (Stokes-Casey & Elliot, 2019). The language of the ESSA notes that all students deserve a well rounded education - which includes the arts along with reading and math, but ultimately it is up to states to determine how a “well-rounded” education is interpreted and implemented in state ESSA plans (Stokes-Casey & Elliot, 2019). 

The problem posed by educational policies is that student education is focused completely on specific reading and math skills that need to be easily measured by a standardized test - making students successful in the most basic tasks and jobs (Beveridge, 2010). Public schools provide access to free public education where at risk students can receive arts education without having to pay for them (Beveridge, 2010). This may be the only place in which students can receive comprehensive arts education and exposure to the arts without having to pay for outside programs. However, the current education policy instead sets schools up to focus on specific timelines to achieve ‘growth’ in student outcomes on standardized assessments. The timetable set up by NCLB and later ESSA creates unrealistic expectations that work in the business world, but does not translate to students with multiple needs and with schools that need positive outcomes occur in a short period of time (Beveridge, 2010). There is a trend in public urban schools reported by principals where there is inadequate resources for arts education because there is overall a lack of resources for these schools (Miksza, 2013). Schools with resource inequities may find themselves having to use their own limited resources to bridge gaps that educational policy is supposed to help them close. Educational policies that continue to marginalize the arts sets up a system that allows only the most affluent students access to a well rounded education - further widening the achievement gap (Beveridge, 2010). Policymakers have to question if the language of their educational policy aimed to close achievement gaps in our most vulnerable schools does enough to address systematic failures or does it place too much of a burden on overwhelmed and under funded schools?

Teacher Practice

Federal education policies - No Child Left Behind in 2001 and Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015 - changed the culture within schools and greatly affected teacher practice, particularly for the arts (Hanawait, 2018; Chapman, 2007). Federal policy became the framework for how schools organized funding, resources, instructional time and most importantly how teachers developed their practice to meet standardized testing goals (Hanawait, 2018). It is reasonable to assume school administrators focused the resource organization of their schools to meet accountability measures set forth by policy guidelines - impacting school culture, effects on teacher practice and teacher perception and experiences. For arts educators, the variation in policy interpretations by administrators can mean having to meet potentially impossible standards for a policy with no incentives for non tested subjects like the arts (Hanawait, 2018). Without incentives for non tested subjects, areas like the arts find themselves trying to assimilate to school goals - even if it goes against teacher pedagogy where educators are unable to implement practices that do not align with testing outcome goals  (Hanawait, 2018). For new teachers, it becomes especially difficult to develop their own teacher identities and practices when schools solely focus on testing outcomes (Hanawait, 2018). 

Due to the high stakes nature of standardized testing and the accountability/funding structure started in NCLB and continued with ESSA, an “audit culture” was created in schools (Hanawait, 2018). The Audit culture created by policy stems from the near constant focus on testing outcomes - in which data from these outcomes influence how school administrators monitor their own teachers, distribution of resources and the professional development of their teachers (Hanawait, 2018; Chapman, 2007). The early instances of audit culture were seen in how schools handled meeting accountability measure requirements for NCLB - particular schools who did not meet the guidelines set by the policy. Under NCLB, schools had to demonstrate Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) in student testing outcomes and failure to perform meant penalties and greater oversight on the school to improve results within a given timeframe - usually within a school year (Chapman, 2007). When schools fail to produce the necessary results, schools turn to specific strategies to implement school wide - aligning instruction to testing, increased analysis of testing results and professional development focused on teaching practice to improve student outcomes (Chapman, 2007). In order to push these strategies school wide, resources are poured into tested subject areas to meet goals, leaving non tested subjects with reductions in instructional time and cuts in resources given to these areas (Chapman, 2007). With these school wide measures in place, it is possible that the arts programs resources were shifted to help meet testing goals, despite not being a consideration in testing measures as a non tested subject. How can arts educators create comprehensive art programs for their students when school goals based on policy do not align to support arts programs? Do these policies change how arts educators' practice and professional development  - particularly for new arts teachers who are still understanding their own professional identities? 

Part of the strategies for schools to meet the AYP goals set up by the NCLB was development of “best practices” to be implemented school wide across all subjects, tested or not (Chapman, 2007). These “best practices” were meant to be aligned to national and state standards along with ‘scientifically proven’ effective teacher practices that could be implemented into multiple subject areas - but most importantly these were cost effective practices (Chapman, 2007). When cost becomes a factor to establish what ‘good’ teacher practice looks like, does that change the nature of how educators educate their students? The idea behind best practices is that teachers can pick between these ‘interventions’ to implement in their instruction, taking away their ability to make judgments of their own practice and developing instructional skills to educate students (Chapman, 2007). Who creates these ‘best practices’ and do these interventions work across multiple subject areas with different methods of content and instruction? Or are these interventions created for a specific purpose - to produce necessary testing outcomes - where does that leave non tested subjects in these interventions?

The creation of these school wide interventions based on improving testing outcomes can have an effect on art teacher practice and art teacher experiences based on how schools interpret and implement policy in their schools - particularly for new arts teachers trying to develop their own professional identities. In order to meet school wide expectations to perform, new teachers find themselves under pressure to conform to practices to maintain the school’s goals - for example arts educators who had exposure to social justice arts education may find themselves having to disregard that curriculum if school testing goals do not align with that pedagogy (Hanawait, 2018). Policies like NCLB, which established the funding structure that gives incentives to tested subjects create school practices that can ignore non tested subjects in organization planning and resources allocation (Hanawait, 2018; Chapman, 2007). There are feelings of isolation that arts educators note when it comes to how administrators deal with non tested subjects and the professional development for teachers are approached - which has effects in teacher evaluations, professional development and leadership opportunities (Hanawait, 2018). States and districts develop frameworks to evaluate teachers - for example in the Mid-atlantic and East coast, states have adopted Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching as an evaluative tool for teacher practice in the classroom (Hanawait, 2018). The evaluators using Danielson are generally administrators who rarely have an arts background but are evaluating arts teacher practice (Hanawait, 2018). It is logical to assume that having evaluators with no background in the arts evaluating arts teacher practice - there are areas of the pedagogy that are misunderstood or lost - especially when administrator evaluators are thinking about how teacher practice can be used to improve student outcomes on tests. Can arts educators be fairly evaluated under this framework? The Danielson framework only is one part of teacher evaluations, the other part includes student scores on state standardized tests - in which outcomes affect teacher evaluations (Hanawait, 2018). For arts educators, whose subject area is not included in standardized testing data, this means that half of their teacher evaluations are out of their control as scores from English or Math are used to complete arts teacher evaluations (Hanawait, 2018). Teacher evaluations for arts educators become a challenge of changing their practice to focus on how to gain the approval of their administrators who dictate how well evaluations went - so much so that some administrators' presence wasn’t needed for teachers to adjust their practice to meet administrator expectations (Hanawait, 2018). Jorge Lucero, a former Chicago public school art teacher, on best practice, “...my idea of best practices had less to do with understanding myself as a teacher within the specific context of who and what I was teaching, and more within a homogenized sense of teaching what I was told were the best practices in my field” (Stabler & Lucero, 2019, p. 30). How can arts educators be the leaders in the classroom and create the learning necessary for students when the very thing that they are evaluated by limits them to narrow standards created by a policy that established a structure which does not consider the arts a valuable aspect of student learning? Another intervention that came out of NCLB was the development of Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) which had teachers in all subject areas designing and planning for SLOs aligned to necessary testing outcomes and national standards (Hanawait, 2018). Teachers worked on understanding how to create SLOs in professional development - but for arts educators the examples provided in sessions focused on reading or math leaving art educators to navigate understanding and creating their own SLOs from scratch, an example being vocabulary which was easier to document and quantify for administrators (Hanawait, 2018, p.96). The experiences for arts educators became one where compliance to school testing goals equates professionalism and being a ‘good’ art teacher (Hanawait, 2018). The ‘good’ art teacher follows administrator's expectations and norms, provides evidence of student progress in easy to quantify ways and to be essential support to the ‘core’ tested classes without any consequential support in return (Hanawait, 2018). School concerns have become so hyper focused on data stemming from standardized testing due to the federal funding received because of those outcomes, public schools have become places where according to Stabler & Lucero (2019), “...public schools have come to represent for many students a stress-inducing experience of near-constant drilling and testing that likely drives away well to do families just as effectively as any fears about violence, moral corruption or inadequate teaching and resources” (p. 35). For our most vulnerable students where public school is sometimes the only place to receive a well rounded, comprehensive education without having to pay - the original spirit of the ESSA and its predecessors - there is a disconnect in how that is implemented by schools, hurting our most vulnerable students where these challenges are most prevalent.