There’s a conversation that happens every year in schools and districts across the country.
A fine arts supervisor walks into a budget meeting prepared. They’ve got enrollment numbers, photos from the district art show, and student quotes about what it’s like to be in the arts courses. They’ve put together information they’re proud to share because they care deeply about these programs, as well as the arts educators and students who depend on them.
But the question on the table at this meeting isn’t “is the arts program meaningful?” It’s “how are the arts programs moving the needle on our school and district priorities?” Because the principals and superintendents in these meetings are accountable for attendance rates, social-emotional development, school engagement, and academic achievement. Those are the outcomes on their scorecard.
As meaningful as enrollment numbers, art show photos, and student quotes are, they don’t answer that question.
Year after year, arts programs find themselves in a precarious position. Not because they aren’t producing results, but because the results they’re producing aren’t being measured or communicated in the language of the room they’re trying to win.
The Default Data Problem
For arts programs committed to culturally responsive, equity-centered practice, the data problem runs even deeper. Most arts leaders track data such as enrollment, attendance at performances, grades, even what students and teachers share about arts courses.
But enrollment numbers tell you who showed up. Not who isn’t showing up, and not whether those courses are moving students towards the outcomes the district is prioritizing. Attendance at performances is an output of courses, not a student learning outcome. And grades measure compliance and completion, not growth in skills or mastery. And while quotes from students and teachers are important data points, “my students love my class” is an observation, not evidence.
Arts programs continue to fight for resources not because they aren’t producing results, but because not enough arts programs are measuring or communicating those results in the language decision-makers can understand in a compelling way. And when the case doesn’t get made, the consequences go far beyond one budget cycle. I wrote about this in the first article of this series: the pipeline problem and the future arts advocates we lose when our students leave our programs without experiencing what a high-quality arts education can actually do. If you haven’t read that article yet, you can access it here: Who Is Your Arts Program Really For?
Research is clear that a high quality arts education leads to measurable outcomes that are connected to many of the most critical priorities districts have right now including reduced disciplinary infractions, positive effects on self-control, social-emotional development, and reduced chronic absenteeism.
But that data only matters when arts programs can clearly make the connection between the results a high-quality arts program produces and the priorities decision makers are being held accountable for. And that connection starts with measuring the right things. But there’s a more specific question that most arts data doesn’t answer: is our program reaching and serving every student through a culturally responsive, equity-centered lens?
The Equity Problem Inside the Outcomes Argument
Not all arts programs are created equally, or equitably.
While the research is clear that the arts drive positive outcomes for students in numerous ways, there’s a caveat: it’s not just any type of arts learning, it’s a high-quality arts program designed with intention.
Arts programs produce positive student outcomes when they’re intentionally designed to be culturally responsive to its learners. Research shows that arts programs have socio-emotional effects regardless of the teacher’s intent, and can produce negative socio-emotional outcomes when the program isn’t designed intentionally. A student who experiences an arts program where they struggle to connect, see relevance in the learning, or lack a sense of belonging, quietly gets the message that arts “isn’t for kids like you.” Those students don’t just miss out on the power of the arts, but they also don’t get the attendance, school engagement, reduced disciplinary incidents, or social-emotional benefits that the arts produce.
An arts program that only reaches some students means that only the select few are moving towards those bigger outcomes. This is why arts programs intentionally designed with culturally responsive, equity-centered practices are so critical. An arts program could have strong enrollment numbers, but disaggregated data for student demographics and who is re-enrolling year after year and who isn’t may tell a very different story about which students really are getting access to the power of the arts, and who aren’t. This is exactly what I found during a past equity audit: same community, same program, two completely different student experiences. The students inside the arts courses were thriving. But the students outside of those courses were getting a clear message that it wasn’t for them. That gap isn’t just a visibility problem; it’s an outcomes problem.
It’s clear that culturally responsive arts education isn’t a separate equity initiative layered on top of an arts program. When embedded into a program’s policies, practices, procedures, and curriculum, culturally responsive arts education becomes the mechanism that ensures the arts reaches all students. And that’s the only way an arts program can truly deliver on all the outcomes we know the arts can drive, and the ones leaders are being held accountable for. In the third article of this series, Beyond Good Vibes: Making Culturally Responsive Arts Education Visible, we talked about how culturally responsive practices that only live in an arts educator’s head can’t be replicated, defended, or funded and the same is true here. If the arts aren’t reaching every student, the outcomes data will reveal that gap.
Decide What Matters First
Before you can measure culturally responsive arts practice, you have to define what it looks like in your context. That’s a leadership decision that will determine whether your data will be positioned to actually tell the story of what your program is doing for students.
What data will allow you to specifically point to the ways that culturally responsive practice is occurring in your arts program and connect directly to the outcomes your district is already tracking?
We must be specific and decide what matters most before we measure it. This is how we ensure our data reflects our values, not just what was easiest or most convenient to track. For example, if your district has a priority around reducing absenteeism, you may want to track this by gathering data over time on the absenteeism rate of students enrolled in arts courses, students who are not enrolled in arts courses, and over time what it looks like for students who enroll in arts courses over two or more years vs. students who don’t enroll in arts courses at all or who enroll in arts courses for only one year. This should also include specific absenteeism data on student demographics including students of color, students enrolled in honors or AP courses, and students with disabilities in order to paint a fuller picture of the impact of arts courses on absenteeism and access.
As you consider which areas most need clear measurement in your program, consider using the domains of the Arts as a Vehicle™ framework as a guide. In article two of this series, What Culturally Responsive Arts Education Is and Isn’t, I introduce the Arts as a Vehicle™ framework and give examples of what each domain means in practice, which provides the foundation for understanding what measurement looks like across each domain.
What Culturally Responsive Practice Looks Like When It’s Measured
Most arts programs don’t lack data. They lack data that makes the case connected to overall district priorities, and a framework for deciding which data matters most in telling the story of the power of the arts.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:
- Developing a Lens for Equity in the Arts: Not just enrollment numbers, but disaggregated enrollment and re-enrollment data showing whether students from historically underrepresented groups are participating at comparable rates and whether that pattern is shifting over time as a result of intentional program decisions.
- Designing Culturally Responsive Arts Spaces: Not just observations of “my students love my class,” but student survey data asking students about their experience collected consistently in order to show change over time, inform specific decisions, and demonstrate whether intentional program decisions are changing students’ experiences over time.
- Navigating Diverse Arts Content: Not a diverse concert program, but a documented content and curriculum process with data that demonstrates the diversity of artists, styles, genres, and techniques over time in the curriculum.
- Designing Arts Curriculum for Real-World Contexts: Not a great lesson students enjoyed, but unit and lesson plans where both standards alignment and culturally responsive design rationale are written and traceable. A leader reviewing the plan should be able to see what students learned as well as why the content and context were chosen for these specific students.
- Delivering Instruction That Expands Access: Not just report card grades, but formative and summative assessment data disaggregated by student groups showing how students are demonstrating understanding and moving towards mastery and whether any student groups may need more targeted support. Because if certain students consistently show less growth, that’s an equity and outcomes problem.
In your next program review or budget conversation, don’t lead with enrollment numbers. Lead with one intentionally chosen indicator from each of the framework domains. What does your disaggregated enrollment data show? What do students say when asked whether this program was built for them? How are content decisions being made and documented? Are all students demonstrating understanding — or just most of them? And together, what story does that data tell about whether your arts program is reaching every student and moving them toward the district’s priorities? This is how you close the gap between what your arts program says it’s doing and what it can actually prove.
From Defending a Program to Making a Case
When leaders have intentional, clearly defined indicators of equity and culturally responsive practice connected to district priorities, that annual budget meeting changes. You’re no longer defending a program. You’re telling a story and presenting evidence that the arts program is a strategic lever for the outcomes your superintendent is already accountable for: attendance, social-emotional development, school engagement, and academic achievement.
This is how we ensure that advocacy is always occurring, not just when there’s a budget cut and the arts are on the chopping block. Arts programs that can demonstrate not just the positive effects of the arts on student outcomes, but also connect those outcomes back to district priorities, are in a fundamentally stronger position. Because the case has already been made before the conversation starts, not after.
The arts have always been a vehicle for the outcomes that matter most: for students, for schools, and for communities. The work now is to measure that impact intentionally, so the case gets made every day, not just the day of the budget meeting.
Data tells you what. The next question is how you turn that data into a story someone else can follow and point to. And that’s what the fifth article in this series will dive into.
This is the fourth of a six-part series on building arts programs where culturally responsive practice is visible, measurable, and sustainable. If this resonated with you, I’d love to have you join the conversation! Subscribe to my weekly newsletter for deeper dives, behind-the-scenes thinking, and the conversations happening in the field — the kind of stuff that doesn’t make it into the blog.
Are you a leader looking for support to make culturally responsive practice visible, measurable, and sustainable in your arts program? Book a discovery call and let’s talk about what that could look like for your program.