Arts on Line Education Update January 11, 2016

Ohio Alliance for Arts Education
Arts on Line Education Update
January 11, 2016
Joan Platz

 

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

131st Ohio General Assembly: The Ohio House will hold some committee meetings this week as lawmakers return to Columbus.

-The House Government Accountability and Oversight Committee, chaired by Representative Brown, will meet on January 12, 2016 at 1:30 PM in hearing room 114.  The committee will receive sponsor testimony on a number of bills, including the following:

-SB63 (LaRose) Online Voter registration, which would create an online voter registration system.

-HB350 (Grossman-Terhar) Autism Mandated Coverage of Autism Treatment, which would mandate coverage of autism treatment.

-HB384 (Schaffer-Duffey) Higher Education Audits, which would specify that state institutions of higher education may be subject to performance audits conducted by the Auditor of State.

 

Grace Commission to Meet: The Grace Commission, co-chaired by Senator Bill Coley and Representative Kirk Schuring, will meet on January 14, 2016 at 10:00 AM in Hearing Room 116.  The commission was created in HB64 – Smith to identify ways for the state government to increase efficiency; enhance managerial accountability and administrative controls; recommend short and long term operating improvements; and specify areas for further study and potential savings in a report due to the General Assembly by May 29, 2016.

Other commission members include Representative Nathan Manning (R-North Ridgeville); Senator Dave Burke (R-Marysville); David Johnson, CEO of Summitville Tiles; Bret Dixon, Director of Economic Development and Business Development for Clinton County; Ohio Manufacturers’ Association President Eric Burkland; Mercer County Economic Development Director Jared Ebbing; Columbus Partnership CEO Alex Fischer; former GOP Senator Mark Wagoner; and former GOP Representative Lynn Wachtmann.

Bill Phillis, Executive Director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, requested in an email post on January 5, 2016 that the commission examine the efficiency and efficacy of Ohio’s system of funding charter schools, which receive over $1 billion annually in funding deducted from school districts.

 

Candidate Selected for 18th House District: Kristin S. Boggs has been selected by a House Democratic screening committee to complete the term of Representative Michael Stinziano (18th House District), who was recently elected to the Columbus City Council.  Ms. Boggs is an assistant attorney general and has served as a board member for the American Constitution Society and as a volunteer for the Court Appointed Special Advocate for Franklin County.  She will officially take office when the House convenes later this month.

 

OCMC to Meet:  The Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission (OCMC) and its committees will meet on January 14, 2016.  The commission was established in 2011 by the General Assembly to review the Ohio Constitution and recommend changes.  The commission has already voted to make no changes in Article VI Sections 1 & 2 of the Ohio Constitution regarding public funds for education and the “thorough and efficient” clause, and continues its review of other provisions in the constitution. The commission is set to terminate on January 1, 2018.

The OCMC committee on Education, Public Institutions and Local Government will meet on January 14, 2016 at 9:30 AM in Hearing Room 017.  State Board of Education president, Tom Gunlock, will make a presentation on the structure and operation of the State Board of Education.

The OCMC met previously on January 6, 2016 and voted to re-appoint all members, although some changes in the roster are expected sometime this year.

The OCMC will continue to be co-chaired by Representative Ron Amstutz (R-Wooster) and Senator Charleta Tavares (D-Columbus).  Other legislative representatives on the OCMC include Representatives Ron Amstutz, Kathleen Clyde, Bob Cupp, Michael Curtin, Robert McColley, and Emilia Strong Sykes, and Senators Larry Obhoff, Bob Peterson, Tom Sawyer, Michael Skindell, and Charleta Tavares.

Rounding out the commission are the following members:

– Janet Gilligan Abaray, a Cincinnati attorney

– Herb Asher, a former government affairs leader for Ohio State University

– Roger Beckett, director of the Ashbrook Center Director in Ashland

– Karla Bell, law clerk to U.S. District Judge David Dowd

– Paula Brooks, Franklin County Commissioner

– Douglas Cole, an Upper Arlington attorney and former state solicitor

– Jo Ann Davidson, former House Speaker Jo Ann Davidson

– Patrick Fischer, First District Appellate Judge

– Edward Gilbert, an Akron attorney

– Former Senator Jeff Jacobson

– Charles Kurfess, former House Speaker

– Rev. Larry Macon Sr. from Richfield,

– Frederick Mills, an Upper Arlington attorney

– Dennis Mulvihill, a Hudson attorney

– Chad Readler, a Columbus attorney

– Richard Saphire, a University of Dayton law professor

– Former Governor Bob Taft

– Pierrette “Petee” Talley, secretary-treasurer of the Ohio AFL-CIO

– Kathleen Trafford, a Columbus attorney

– Former Senator Mark Wagoner.

See http://www.ocmc.ohio.gov/ocmc/home

 

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO MEET

The State Board of Education, Tom Gunlock president, will meet on January 11 & 12, 2016 at the Ohio Department of Education, 25 South Front Street in Columbus, OH.

The Achievement and Graduation Requirements Committee, chaired by C. Todd Jones, will meet at 8:00 AM in Room 102.  The committee will approve performance levels on state assessments; discuss public comment on proposed honors diploma options; and receive an update about assessment.  However, an expected update on the proposed gifted standards is not included on this month’s committee agenda. The Ohio Association for Gifted Children (OAGC) reported on December 30, 2015 that it would not be presenting to the committee in January 2016, due to the State Board’s increased workload as it focuses on hiring a new superintendent of public instruction to replace Richard Ross, who retired in December 2015.  The OAGC assumes that it will be invited to testify before the committee in February 2016. See http://www.oagc.com/advocacyAlerts.asp.  According to the timeline, the Achievement Committee will receive a new draft of the proposed standards in April 2016, and vote on the proposed standards in May 2016.

The State Board will convene its business meeting and receive reports from interim Superintendent of Public Instruction Lonny Rivera following the Achievement Committee meeting.  The reports will cover the Education Management Information System (EMIS); Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): Standards and Assessment Review Committee; Financial Literacy; and Charter Schools.

The Board will receive public participation on agenda and non-agenda items following lunch.

The Academic Distress Commission Work Group, the Capacity Committee, the Accountability Committee, the Urban and Rural Renewal Committee, and the Work Group on State Board of Education’s Professional Development will also meet in the afternoon.

The State Board will continue its meeting on January 12, 2016 at 9:00 AM.  The Board will receive reports from committees and from the search firm hired by the State Board to identify candidates for the position of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

The State Board will consider the following resolutions at their January 2016 meeting:

  • #1 Approve a Resolution of Intent to Rescind Chapter 3301-12 of the Administrative Code, State Superintendent Spending Orders.
  • #2 Approve a Resolution of Intent to Amend Rule 3301-28-06 of the Administrative Code, Entitled Value-Added Progress Dimension.
  • #3 Approve a Resolution of Intent to Rescind Chapter 3301-44 of the Administrative Code, Post Secondary Enrollment Options.
  • #4 Approve a Resolution of Intent to Rescind Rule 3301-92-01 of the Administrative Code, Textbooks and Instructional Materials.
  • #5 Approve a Resolution of Intent to Amend Rule 3301-92-02 of the Administrative Code, Capital Improvement and Maintenance Fund.
  • #6 Approve a Resolution of Intent to Rescind Rule 3301-102-08 of the Administrative Code, Standards for Measuring Sponsor Compliance with Applicable Laws and Rules, and to Adopt Rule 3301-102-08, Standards for Measuring Sponsor Compliance with Applicable Laws and Rules.
  • #7 Approve a Resolution of Intent to Adopt Rule 3301-105-01 of the Administrative Code, Funding for Educational Service Centers.
  • #8 Approve a Resolution of Intent to Refer the Clermont Northeastern Local School District’s Determination of Impractical Transportation of a Certain Student Attending St. Veronica School in Cincinnati, Clermont County, Ohio to a Hearing Officer.
  • #9 Approve a Resolution of Intent to Refer the North Ridgeville City School District’s Determination of Impractical Transportation of Certain Students Attending Albert Einstein Academy in Westlake, Lorain County, Ohio to a Hearing Officer.
  • #10 Approve a Resolution to Amend Rule 3301-30-01 of the Administrative Code, Ohio Department of Youth Services Schools.
  • #11 Approve a Resolution to Amend Rule 3301-53-01 of the Administrative Code, Minimum Standards for Chartering County Boards of Developmental Disabilities Special Education Schools; Rule 3301-53-03 of the Administrative Code, Excess Cost Charges for County Boards of Developmental Disabilities for Special Education Programs; and Rule 3301-55-01 of the Administrative Code, Minimum Standards for Chartering Special Education Programs in State Developmental Centers and Hospitals of the Department of Developmental Disabilities and the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.
  • #18  Approve a Resolution to Adopt Model Curricula in Financial Literacy in Accordance with the Requirements of Revised Code Section 3301.079.
  • #19  Approve a Resolution to Adopt Performance Levels.

 

NATIONAL NEWS

ESSA Implementation Underway:  Education Week published last week a series of articles about the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which became law on December 10, 2015.  The former law, known as the No Child Left Behind Act and the U.S. Department of Education waivers, expire on August 1, 2016, while the new law will be fully implemented in the 2017-18 school year.

The new law redefines the federal role in elementary and secondary education and increases the authority of states and school districts for decision making in certain areas.  This special report examines how the law will affect accountability and testing, school funding, teachers, early childhood education, and more when it takes effect in the 2017-18 academic year.  Also included are articles about the increased flexibility in spending federal dollars to support economically disadvantaged students; nonacademic measures for determining school success; and state responsibilities for turning around under-performing schools.

The U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE) has already informed state departments of education in a “Dear Colleague Letter” on December 18, 2015 that the U.S. DOE will be reviewing state programs and projects, and offering guidance as states transition from No Child Left Behind to ESSA, According to the letter, adjustments will be made in expectations for Title I assessment peer review; annual measurable objectives (AMOs) and annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) for school years 2014–2015 and 2015–2016; conditions and other related requirements under ESEA flexibility; priority and focus school lists; and educator evaluation and support systems under ESEA flexibility.

See “Inside the Every Student Succeeds Act” by

Education Week at http://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/inside-essa-the-new-federal-education-law/index.html

 

States Might Use College Readiness Assessments to Meet Federal Accountability Requirements:  Education Week reports that the U.S. Department of Education has granted permission for seven states to use a college entrance exam to meet federal accountability requirements rather than using a standards-based assessment.

The recently enacted federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) allows states to meet federal accountability requirements by using a national test that measures college readiness, but the rules and regulations still need to be developed.  Exams that are mentioned include the ACT and SAT, but other assessments that measure college readiness might also be used once the rules are developed.

According to the article, the decision signifies a national shift away from measuring student achievement based on state academic content standards.  The shift to SAT or ACT also affects state accountability systems, which will be reporting the results for college readiness rather than student achievement.

The states that are considering using the SAT and ACT for federal accountability purposes must present to the U.S. Department of Education evidence that the exams are valid for measuring student achievement.

Although both the companies that publish the SAT and ACT report alignment with the Common Core standards used in 40 states, independent studies have not been reported to validate the alignment. The article quotes FairTest and the Center for Assessment that warn that the SAT and ACT assessments have not been validated to assess high school academic performance, and have been shown to favor wealthier students.

See “Will States Swap Standards-Based Tests for SAT, ACT?” by Catherine Gewertz, Education Week, January 4, 2016 at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/06/will-states-swap-standards-based-tests-for-sat.html

 

REPORTS

2016 Education Week Quality Counts Report: Education Week released on January 6, 2016 its annual Quality Counts report, entitled this year “Called to Account: New Directions in School Accountability.”

The report rates and ranks state education systems on three major components based on a number of indicators and measures.  The components are Chance-for-Success; School Finance; and K-12 Achievement.

The Chance-for-Success rating includes scores for 13 indicators that represent Early Foundations, (family income and linguistic integration); School Years, (pre-school and post-secondary enrollment and proficiency scores); and Adult Outcomes, (degree attainment, employment, and income).

The K-12 Achievement grade is based on 18 indicators including scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), graduation rates, and Advanced Placement scores.

The School Finance grade is based on the most recent data available (2013) about school spending patterns, equity, and overall spending as a proportion of state budgets.

According to Quality Counts, the average per pupil spending for the nation is $11,667 after adjusting for regional differences.  Vermont had the highest per pupil spending at $18,853, and Utah the lowest level at $6,980.

 

Summary of Findings:  Similar to last year, the nation earned an overall C corresponding to 74.4 out of 100 points.  Last year’s score was 74.3 points.

Massachusetts earned the highest rating of B+ (86.8 points), followed by New Jersey (85.1), Vermont (83.8), and Maryland (82.7).

Nevada earned the lowest grade of D (65.2).  Also receiving Ds are Mississippi (65.6) and New Mexico (65.9).

Most states were grouped in the middle with grades between C+ and C-. The District of Columbia showed significant growth, moving up from 38th to 28th place and increasing its score from C- (70) to C (72.9)

Ohio’s Quality Count Score:  According to the report Ohio earned an overall C (74.9 out of 100) based on an average of grades for the three categories.  Ohio earned a C- in K-12 Achievement (25th place); C+ for Chances for Success (27th place); and a C for School Finance (20th place).

Ohio’s overall rating represents a drop from 75.8 points last year, and drops Ohio from 18th place to 23rd place, when compared to the other states and the District of Columbia.

The grade for K-12 Achievement brought Ohio’s ranking to 25th place overall in that category.  Ohio’s state average proficiency rate on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 4th and 8th grade reading and math combined (2015), was 38.3 percent, up 4.7 points between 2003-2015.  But the educational gap between students on free or reduced price lunch and wealthier students was 32.2, which is higher than the national average of 30.1.

Ohio posted a positive educational gap change of +6.2 for 4th and 8th grade reading and math between 2003-2015, earning Ohio a rank of 43rd in the nation on that indicator.  A negative educational gap change means that the state is closing the educational gap between low and higher income students. Ohio’s educational gap change is also higher than the national average of +3.8.

According to the School Finance Analysis, based on 2013 data, the average adjusted per pupil spending in Ohio was $11,842, compared to the national average of $11,667. Spending on education as a percent of state taxable resources was 3.6 percent compared to 3.4 percent nationally.  Ohio posted a positive wealth neutrality score, meaning that wealthy districts have more funding per weighted pupil than poorer districts.

Compared to other states Ohio’s overall ranking has dropped since 2010 when Ohio was ranked 5th in the nation. Ohio ranked 11th in 2011, 10th in 2012 and 12th in 2013.  Education Week revamped its rating system in 2014, and did not publish an overall ranking for states.

See the report for Ohio at http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2016/shr/16shr.oh.h35.pdf

See “2016 Education Ranking Put States, nation to the Test”, Education Week, January 7, 2016 at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/07/2016-education-rankings-put-states-nation-to-the-test.html

 

Most Superintendents Report Taxpayers Don’t Understand State Accountability Systems: The Washington-based Gallup, Inc. released on January 6, 2016 the results of a survey of school district superintendents taken in November 2015.  About 1,300 school district superintendents participated in the survey, and reported the following:

-Evaluating the Effectiveness of Public Schools:  83 percent of superintendents ranked high school graduation rates, student engagement, and student optimism as very important school evaluation measures. Superintendents reported that the “paths” students take after graduation are a less effective way to measure public schools.  The paths include the percentage of high school students who attend technical or trade school; enroll in post secondary education; or become employed.

-Understanding Perspectives on Public Education in the U.S.:  71 percent of superintendents reported that parents should have more information about how schools are evaluated.  Only 16 percent of superintendents thought that parents understand how their state accountability systems work.

-Course Offerings:  Over 79 percent of superintendents reported that they offer courses such as foreign languages, dual enrollment to earn college credit, or career technical education.  Over 58 percent of superintendents reported offering Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses, SAT or ACT preparation, and personal finance.

-Standardized Testing:  67 percent of superintendents reported that their schools are spending more classroom time preparing for standardized tests, and 61 percent reported that students are taking more standardized tests than in the past. 78 percent of superintendents reported that parents believe that there is too much testing.

-Federal Education Policies: 89 percent of superintendents reported that the federal government had done an “only fair” or “poor” job handling K-12 policies.

See “Understanding Perspectives on Public Education in the U.S.  Results of a Gallup Survey of K-12 School District Superintendents :  Survey 2” at http://www.scribd.com/doc/294745646/2015-Superintendent-Report.

 

Latest Comparison of U.S. and G-20 Education Systems: The National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education published in December 2015 a comparison of the education systems in the United States with those in twenty economically developed countries, known as the G-20 in five areas.  The countries of the G-20 include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The report is entitled Comparative Indicators of Education in the United States and Other G-20 Countries: 2015, and includes information about population and school enrollment; academic performance; contexts for learning; expenditure for education; and education returns, such as educational attainment and income.

The report is based on current information about education from the International Indicators of Education Systems (INES) project at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); international assessments; and the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), which assesses adults, ages 16 to 65, in literacy, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments.

The international assessments used in the report include the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), which assesses fourth-graders in reading; the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which assesses fourth- and eighth-graders in mathematics and science; and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which assesses 15-year-old students (regardless of grade) in mathematics, reading, science, and, occasionally, other subjects;

This report has been published on a biennial basis since 2002, but previously focused on the G-8 countries. The following are some highlights of the report:

Enrollment in Formal Education:  “In France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, the percentage of 3- to 4-year-olds enrolled in preprimary or primary education programs in 2011 was above 90 percent, whereas in the United States, the rate was 64 percent. In the United States, it was not until age 6 that at least 90 percent of the population was enrolled in formal education.”

Academic Performance:

-4th Grade Reading 2011 Results:  17 percent of U.S. students performed at the highest level (advanced) on a set of international benchmarks set by PIRLS.  This compares to 19 percent for students from the Russian Federation and U.K. North Ireland, and 18 percent for U.K. England.

-4th Grade Math and Science 2011 Results:  13 percent of U.S. fourth-graders reached the advanced benchmark in mathematics and 15 percent in science, respectively, compared with 39 and 29 percent of Korean fourth-graders; 30 percent and 14 percent for students in Japan; and 24 percent and 5 percent for students in the U.K. N. Ireland. (Indicator 5)

-8th Grade Math and Science:  7 percent of U.S. students reached the advanced benchmark in mathematics, as did 10 percent in science; in both subjects, the U.S. percentages were lower than those of students in four of the10 participating G-20 countries: Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom (England). (Indicator 6).

-Age 15 in Reading 2012 Results:  8 percent of U.S. students reached the advanced level and 17 percent scored at level 1 or below.

The United States had larger percentages of high performers and smaller percentages of low performers than 9 of the 14 participating G-20 countries, but Australia, Canada, France, Japan, and the Republic of Korea each had larger percentages of high performers and smaller percentages of low performers than the United States.

-Age 15 in Math:  9 percent of U.S. students reached the high end of the performance scale in mathematics and 7 percent did so in science, which was lower than in 7 and 6 countries, respectively (indicator 7).

-Adult Reading Literacy for 2012: 12 percent of adults (ages 16 to 65) in the U.S. reached the high levels of 4 or 5 on the literacy scale defined in PIAAC.  The high level ranged from 3 percent in Italy to 23 percent in Japan.

The percentage of adults at the low end of the scale (level 1 or below) ranged from 5 percent in Japan to 28 percent in Italy.

-Adult Numeracy Literacy:  The percentage of adults at the high end of the performance scale ranged from 4 percent in Italy to 20 percent in Japan, with adults 9 percent of adults in the U.S. achieving high performance.

 

Public School Teachers’ Starting Salaries 2011:  Out of the 14 G-20 countries reporting data (Argentina, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States) Germany reported the highest average starting salary of public school teachers at both the primary and upper secondary levels, followed by the United States.

“In most G-20 countries in 2011 (Germany and Turkey being the exceptions), public school teachers at the beginning of

their careers earned less than the average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in their respective countries (indicator 23).”

Expenditures for Education in 2010:  The total expenditures per student and the portion of these expenditures devoted to core education services were higher in the United States than in all other reporting G-20 countries at both the combined primary and secondary education levels and the higher education level.

-Annual expenditures per student on core education services in the United States were about $10,900 at the combined primary and secondary education levels and about $19,700 at the higher education level. In the other G-20 countries reporting data, annual expenditures per student on core education services ranged from about $1,900 in Turkey to $9,600 in Australia at the combined primary and secondary levels and from about $5,900 in Italy to $15,100 in Canada at the higher education level.

-In 2010 the Republic of Korea and the United States spent a higher percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), 6.8 percent, than any other reporting country on education.

-Between 2000 and 2010 spending at all levels of education tended to hold steady or increase in the reporting countries (indicator 24).

Graduation Rates in 2011: The graduation rates from upper secondary education were above 90 percent in Japan (96 percent), the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom (93 percent), and Germany (92 percent).

-The graduation rate in the United States was 77 percent.

-The lowest graduation rate was in Mexico, at 49 percent;

-The graduation rates from higher education below the doctoral level ranged from a low of 18 percent in Saudi Arabia to a high of 55 percent in the United Kingdom. The graduation rate in the United States was 39 percent (indicator 25).

Educational Attainment:  For 25- to 64-year-olds the average highest level of educational attainment was upper secondary education in France, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Employment Rates:  In the United States and all other G-20 countries reporting data in 2011, adults with higher educational attainment had higher employment rates than adults with lower educational attainment.

See “Comparative Indicators of Education in the United States and Other G-20 Countries: 2015” by Maria Stephens,

Laura K. Warren, and Ariana L. Harner from the American Institutes for Research; and Eugene Owen, Project Officer,

National Center for Education Statistics at the Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, December 2015 at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016100.pdf.

 

FYI ARTS

 

ESSA Supports the Arts: An article in Education Week explains how the reauthorized federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), called the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), “….cements states’ obligation to support arts education programs in public schools.”

According to the article, under the former law, called the “No Child Left Behind Act”, the arts were included in the definition of “core subjects”, which was important, because it made arts education programs eligible for federal funds.

However, early versions proposed in the U.S. House and Senate to reauthorize ESEA did not specifically include the arts, prompting arts education advocates to increase efforts to ensure that the arts and music were included in the new law.

Although the definition of core subjects is dropped in ESSA, the new law includes arts and music in the definition of a “well-rounded education”; authorizes arts education programs and teachers to receive federal funds through Title I, which supports disadvantaged students, and Title II, which supports teachers; includes funding for integrating the arts into STEM; and supports a $20 million grant program for arts education.

See “Arts Learning Keeps Toehold in ESSA” by Jaclyn Zubrzycki, Education Week, January 5, 2016 at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/06/arts-learning-keeps-toehold-in-essa.html

 

 


This update is written weekly by Joan Platz, Research and Knowledge Director for the Ohio Alliance for Arts Education.  The purpose of the update is to keep arts education advocates informed about issues dealing with the arts, education, policy, research, and opportunities.  The distribution of this information is made possible through the generous support of the Ohio Music Education Association (www.omea-ohio.org),Ohio Art Education Association (www.oaea.org), Ohio Educational Theatre Association (www.ohedta.org); OhioDance (www.ohiodance.org), and theOhio Alliance for Arts Education (www.oaae.net).

Advertisements

About OAAE

Since our founding in 1974, by Dr. Dick Shoup and Jerry Tollifson, our mission has always been to ensure the arts are an integral part of the education of every Ohioan. Working at the local, state, and federal levels through the efforts of a highly qualified and elected Board of Directors, our members, and a professional staff we have four primary areas of focus: building collaborations, professional development, advocacy, and capacity building. The OAAE is funded in part for its day-to-day operation by the Ohio Arts Council. This support makes it possible for the OAAE to operate its office in Columbus and to work statewide to ensure the arts are an integral part of the education of every Ohioan. Support for arts education projects comes from the Ohio Arts Council, Ohio Music Education Association, Ohio Art Education Association, Ohio Educational Theatre Association, VSA Ohio, and OhioDance. The Community Arts Education programs of Central Ohio are financially assisted by the Franklin County Board of Commissioners and the Greater Columbus Arts Council. We gratefully acknowledge and appreciate the financial support received from each of these outstanding agencies and organizations.
This entry was posted in Arts On Line. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s