Executive Summary:
CAGW Arts Education Survey

May/June 2006

In fall 2005, the Cultural Alliance of Greater Washington (CAGW) conducted a survey to identify the scope and nature of arts education programs that its member organizations provide for students, teachers, artists, and parents through schools and other educational venues in the greater Washington, DC, metropolitan region. The survey represents arts education activities of organizations for the school year July 2004- June 2005. The survey fulfilled two primary purposes:

1. To describe pre-K through grade 12 arts education in terms of arts disciplines addressed, numbers served, arts education focus (arts experiences, arts learning and arts integration, as well as budgetary allocation).

2. To establish benchmark data for future surveys, demonstrating trends in arts education programming, impact, and resources in Greater Washington.

BACKGROUND AND PROCESS
The CAGW Arts Education Committee, comprised of arts education directors, experts and executive directors of arts organizations from the DC metropolitan region, directed the survey process. The committee is co-chaired by CAGW Board member Terre Jones, President & CEO of Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts, and Dawn McAndrews, President of the DC Arts and Humanities Collaborative and the Director of Education, Shakespeare Theatre Company. The committee defined the process. Jennifer Cover Payne, CAGW Executive Director, coordinated the activities of the committee.

The CAGW, under direction of the committee, commissioned Dr. Alan Yaffe, Director of Arts Management at the University of Cincinnati, to serve as the consultant on the project. With input from committee members, Dr. Yaffe drafted the survey questionnaire, analyzed data and prepared the final report. Definitions of arts education focus were included as guidelines for completing the survey.

PARTICIPANTS PROFILE
From its database, the CAGW membership department identified 198 members to receive the survey. Sixty-six organizations responded, a 33% response rate. Twenty-one of the 66 respondents reported having no arts education programming. The results of the survey are from 45 organizations. The annual arts education program budgets of survey participants ranged from five organizations with less than $10,000 to seven organizations with more than $1,000,000. The overall response rate provides a reasonable degree of reliability regarding revenue sources, arts disciplines, program types and arts education focus, and the percentage of organizations that do not provide arts education activities.

SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS OF ARTS EDUCATION SERVICE FOR THE 2004-2005 SCHOOL YEAR
• CAGW members provided over one million hours of arts education instruction and experiences to students in the DC area.

• CAGW members support arts education and provide additional opportunities for students to learn through in school and after/out of school arts education programs.

• 82% of arts education services provided by CAGW arts organizations support public school students and teachers.

• Organizations provided nearly 82,000 hours of professional development for teachers, demonstrating a commitment to improving teachers' abilities.

• To support area artists' work in education, organizations provide over 9000 hours of professional development for artists.

• Nearly 33,000 parents participate with their children in arts education programs.

• 60% of organizations partner with other CAGW organizations; partnership in the community leverages resources, facilities and increases impact.

• Contributions and grants are the largest source of support and cover more than 50% of arts education expenses for most organizations.

• Individual admissions, fees and tuition are the second largest revenue source. No organization reported that school budgets provided a significant source of income.

• Approximately 212,480 students received arts education from the surveyed organizations during the 2004-2005 school year. That number includes multiple sessions for some students, and there are currently no systems in place to ascertain how many students received repeated visits from several arts organizations.

CONCLUSION
A substantial number of students, teachers, and parents in the Washington metropolitan region are beneficiaries of the educational services of survey respondents. The reporting organizations offer a broad diversity of program types and arts education focus. Respondents clearly recognize the importance of preparing artists for work in schools and other educational settings. However, in order to provide a more accurate report of the number of students served, organizations will have to compile data utilizing a more unified system of collecting student statistics.

The Cultural Alliance of Greater Washington might be able to provide training in this area. The results provide a strong baseline for tracking trends in arts education programming, future impact, allocation and use of resources; and for developing collection strategies for future surveys through better tracking and reporting of data.