Creating change in education is not only a function of affecting classroom practice. To impact education, one must know and then act upon the network of decision-makers that determine what a child experiences each day in the classroom. The first step is to understand the way these decisions are made and revised within the entire network of decision-makers.

A 2-dimensional sketch of the many levels of education (in plain text graphics) may look like this:

• National {Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches -> US Department of Education + special interest groups}

acts upon

• State {State Board of Education -> State Department of Education + special interest groups}

acts upon

• District {Parents and Electorate -> School Board -> Superintendent & staff + parent groups + nonprofit partners}

acts upon

• School {Principal and staff -> Teacher -> Students + parent groups + nonprofit partners}

where "->" indicates oversight and "+" indicates outside influencers.

Outside influencers include such interests as the arts, social and emotional learning, science, English language learning, civics, childhood health, language arts, and others; business, which seeks workforce development goals for students as well as clientele among the bevy of education agencies; and reformers, such as the Center for American Progress and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

This understanding is not new, of course. Within the arts education community, it has been explained in Los Angeles' Call to Action (2002, pdf 342 KB), as well as in the recent publication by the California Alliance for Arts Education titled Accountability in Arts Education (2008).

A few inherent flaws in the diagram above include:

1. The lack of impact upwards. Some districts and states lay claim to little or no oversight power over the priorities or strategies of the agencies beneath them in the diagram. This means that "oversight" may be too strong a word in some cases. In other cases, education agencies may need to respond to the behaviors or needs of those below, more than they mandate or direct them.

2. The lack of generative impact at any specific level. National is not the only generator of policy or mandates. States may create their own, as may districts, and principals. This means that the input of new directives may take place at any point on the hierarchy.

3. Each listed policy-influencer or -maker has a unique role in interpreting and executing policy. For example, the role of the state board of education in responding to (No Child Left Behind) NCLB impacts but is unique from the State Department of Education. At the district level, parents and the rest of the electorate determine priorities for the school board, but the board itself deals in minutiae of finance and legal issues for the school, as well as interprets and executes state and federal mandates. Indeed, public dialogue about local public education is different from the dialogue at school board meetings.

4. In many state, intermediary agencies exist. For example, in California, each county houses districts and employs a county superintendent and staff. In Pennsylvania and other states, intermediary agencies have been established to serve regions that include multiple districts. This layer of bureaucracy is missing from the above diagram.

With a clarified view of why our students learn and experience what they do each day in the classroom, we begin to see why education can be considered a very centralized system in America. Relative to health care and arts funding/programming, public education is a greatly centralized system, with many administrative agencies acting between the federal government and the student.

However, this is still America, and things are more complicated than just top-down. Public education is funded 60-80% by local taxes and heavily directed by school boards and principals. That some claim NCLB is a reform effort that took multiple decades to become legislation is evidence of local control. Further, the locus of power for a given school or set of schools often depends, as well, on its leaders. The personality of school boards, the superintendent, or principal will shift the locus of power the way the moon moves tides. The locus of power over schools, districts, and American public education is a great tension that is re-negotiated frequently and constantly in debate.

This is the beginning of understanding how arts education advocates can, do and don't make change happen. There is a need for action at every one of the described levels - federal, state, district, and school. When we falter at the national level, every other advocate will feel a greater weight fall to them. Likewise, the gains made at the federal level (which may take months or years to hit schools) are no good unless change is made on behalf of the arts at the state, district and school levels.

Americans for the Arts is focusing some of its professional services on this network of decision-makers. Who are they? How do they make decisions? And what is each one's specific influence on arts education? How is each one different from the other in how and why they influence arts education? Americans for the Arts is shining a light on this system to be sure that arts education professionals around the country are consciously choosing the impact they have.Please check out our 2008 Knowledge Exchange if you're interested in diving into this topic more fully.

Understanding this system is the first step to taking a logical, thoughtful approach to impacting it. What level do you act upon? Have you spread yourself too thin? Have you segmented your decision-makers into their distinct impact on arts education? Are you asking them for the right action, based upon their sphere of influence? Are you teaching them about the impact of arts education as it achieves their specific goals - goals that are unique to their position in the hierarchy?

Finally, please feel free to correct this post by leaving a comment below. We are, by no means, the first nor last word on understanding this complex and important system.