Visualizing Just Representation in Art and Design Education Policy Activity

• In Event: Data Visualization to Assist With Accepting Educational Responsibility: Moving Toward Social Justice

Abstract

Art and design education policy in the United States emerges from an overlapping network of formal and informal organizations. This network creates a web of influence over policy development that functions under the radar, largely because art and design education policy implementation is not monitored for alignment (Au & Ferrare, 2015; Coburn, Hill, & Spillane, 2016).
While education policies in the U.S. encourages non-system actors –individuals and organizations from informal contexts – to shape policy and guide practice, this is amplified in the art and design education policy context. Operating with a greater amount of deregulation (a lessening of fiscal policy constraints) and decentralization (the distribution of authority over policies) than other education content the authority of non-system actors is increased in art and design education. These non-system actors are not appointed by or beholden to citizens, minimizing the role of formal actors in policy initiatives and diminishing the involvement of citizenry in these processes.
Since the role citizens is obfuscated in development of art and design education policies, a more detailed description of how formal and informal actors contribute to policy formulation and implementation will 1) provide a detailed description of policy formulation, 2) uncover the degree that art and design educators are represented in policy processes, and 3) ground future policy development studies in the art and design education context. The following three questions guided an exploration of these issues:
How are state and federal level art and design education policies formed?
What is the relationship of policy formation in art and design education and implementation in practice?
To what degree are art and design education practitioners involved in policy formation?
A combination of two theoretical frames were used to model pathways from policy to practice while depicting the interplay of networks among formal and informal contexts: Mazzoni’s (1991) Arena Model and Weaver-Hightower’s (2008) Policy Ecology. These frameworks, paired with the methods of process tracing, reveal the connections and contexts of policy actors in policy processes (Brady & Collier, 2010; Heise, 1969; Zaks, 2011; Bennett & Checkel, 2014; Bennett & George, 1997). Historical and contextual information on the contributions of organizations and individuals, along with policy documents, was analyzed in this least-similar case design (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Marshall, Mitchell, & Wirt, 1986). Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota were selected as cases due to differences in the strength of their art and design education policies.
While articles are a meaningful way to communicate this information, visualizing this process communicates the theoretical framework and the findings for stronger descriptive inferences about the role of citizens in the development of these state policies. The visualized findings communicate how citizen representation might be increased while suggesting directions for future qualitative and quantitative studies of policy development. While these visualizations help extend research inquiry, they also demonstrate a means for the increased participation of citizens in the policy activities that affect them.

Author

• Christopher Grodoski, Community Unit School District 200