University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The art of leadership: investigating the decision-making process of how charter school leaders utilize the arts

(USC Thesis Other)

The art of leadership: investigating the decision-making process of how charter school leaders utilize the arts

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content i
The Art of Leadership: Investigating the Decision-Making Process of How Charter School
Leaders Utilize the Arts.
by
Brian O’Connor
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024

ii
© Copyright by Brian O’Connor 2024
All Rights Reserved

iii
The Committee for Brian O’Connor certifies the approval of this Dissertation
David Cash
Maria Ott
Rudolph Crew, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
The growth in diversity and accountability legislation have dramatically altered the urban
educational landscape the past fifty years. The focus on standardized testing coupled with the
decline in school-facilitated arts education exposure and the proliferation of charter schools have
led to less arts education courses offered in secondary urban charter schools. There is gap of
investigation of how leaders support the arts; particularly charter school principals who have an
outsized role in school operations. This qualitative study examined how principals in secondary
charter schools prioritize the arts (RQ1) and explored barriers leaders perceive in that pursuit
(RQ2) using semi-structured interviews. The study provided insights into the effect that school
leaders have on the arts within their school site, with consideration for the circumstantial
limitations or barriers. Evidence suggested that school leaders support the arts in myriad ways
including soliciting student feedback, fostering a collaborative environment, and projecting
expansive future offerings. Barriers were staffing, cultural barriers, and inherent charter school
qualities. Implications for practice to foster supports and mitigation of barriers include
intentional support of arts education, inclusion of arts-integration practices, and proactively
breaking down cultural barriers.
Keywords: Arts Education, Charter Schools, Leadership

v
Dedication
To my friends and family.
To Sally, who inspires me every day. I could not have achieved this without your love and
support.
To my parents, who always supported me. Whether pursuing music, taking a month off work to
drive across the country with my best friend, or moving to Los Angeles for the love of my life,
they have always been my biggest support system.
To Lily, who sat with me through the numerous reading and writing sessions exuding (mostly)
quiet confidence from her dog bed.

vi
Acknowledgements
My sincere thanks to my dissertation committee. Dr. Crew, my chair, guided me along
this journey and helped to make me feel like I was on the right track. Dr. Cash gave outstanding
guidance to craft this dissertation. Dr. Ott introduced a crucial element of culture to my protocol.
I am incredibly grateful for all your insights and support.
I would also like to thank the educators and colleagues who have shaped me in my
career. My first educational mentor, Janene Kessler, who pushed me to challenge the status quo
in music education and band directing. My Locke family, who embraced me where I was and
inspired me to strive for more. My Rossier family, both in-person and online cohorts, who valued
my perspective and challenged my assumptions.
Finally, I would like to thank the participants in my study. I appreciated you making the
time to showcase your unique worlds and to dream about where the arts can go.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication .......................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study...............................................................................................1
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................4
Significance of the Study.....................................................................................................5
Conceptual Framework........................................................................................................7
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................9
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................11
Effects and Participation....................................................................................................11
Charter Schools' Increasing Role in Education..................................................................20
Examination of the Charter School Principal ....................................................................27
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................34
Selection of the Population ................................................................................................35
Design Summary................................................................................................................36
Methodology......................................................................................................................36
Qualitative Instrument .......................................................................................................36

viii
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................37
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................38
Credibility and Trustworthiness.........................................................................................39
Role of the Researcher.......................................................................................................40
Summary............................................................................................................................41
Chapter Four: Findings..................................................................................................................42
Participants.........................................................................................................................42
Document Review..............................................................................................................43
Research Question One Results.........................................................................................44
Discussion Research Question One ...................................................................................51
Research Question Two Results ........................................................................................52
Discussion Research Question Two...................................................................................57
Summary............................................................................................................................58
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations..........................................................................60
Summary of Findings.........................................................................................................61
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................66
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................................67
Future Research .................................................................................................................68
Conclusions........................................................................................................................70
References......................................................................................................................................71
Appendix A: Interview Protocol....................................................................................................89

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Introduction
Over the past 50 years, the state of education has changed dramatically. Public school K12 enrollment has grown substantially in size and diversity. From 1985 to 2019, student
enrollment in American public schools grew from 39.4 to 50.7 million, a growth of 28 percent
(NCES, 2020). In that time the percentage of White students fell from 69 percent to 46 percent,
while the Hispanic percentage rose from 11 percent to 29 percent (2020). Most of this growth in
diversity has been in urban schools, where there is a much higher population of disadvantaged
students (Kraehe, 2019). Additionally, this recent era has seen several national accountability
measures including No Child Left Behind and the Every Student Succeed Act. The focus on
data, accountability, and standardized testing coincided with a marked decline in schoolfacilitated arts exposure (Gadsden, 2008). Urban schools most often failed to meet accountability
standards and were forced to reduce their arts programming to devote more time to math and
language arts teaching and test preparation (Kraehe, 2019). In combination with funding
inadequacies and systemic oppression, this shift ultimately resulted in urban students in the
United States receiving a markedly inequitable arts education.
Over this same time period, the growth of the charter school movement has further
reshaped the educational landscape. This era of accountability drove legislation to deregulate the
public schooling model to allow for charter schools to explore innovative teaching strategies and
models (Wells et al., 1999). Charter schools are publicly funded schools of choice that operate
privately. As a hybrid form of schooling, they manage their own budget, curriculum, and policy,
but are subject to academic audits from their chartering district. Spreading throughout the
country, charter schools were seen as a political compromise – school choice and reform were

2
popular among Republican advocates, while the continued public funding was favorable in the
view of Democratic politicians (Gawlik, 2008). From 2009-2019, public charter school
enrollment more than doubled in the United States, from 1.6 million to 3.4 million students,
while traditional public school enrollment decreased by one-half million students (NCES, 2022).
In cities across the county, schooling options were diversifying to include traditional public
schools, charter schools, and magnet schools (public schools that attracted students from across
the district, usually focusing on a specific content). Early differentiated districts (New York City,
New Orleans, Chicago, and Washington) were labeled “portfolio districts” in recognition of the
diversity of offerings they contained (like the investor who maintains a diversified financial
portfolio). By 2012, the concept had grown to thirty districts across the county, including
western cities like Denver, Oakland, and Los Angeles (Campbell et al., 2012). Portfolio districts
boasted three levers (parent choice, accountability, and autonomy) that offered students and
families a diversity of schooling options (Marsh et al., 2020). Charter schools can be community
organized, run by a charter organization, or led by an individual. Portfolio districts were
indifferent to who ran a school (or how they ran it) and were instead focused on large-scale
improvement (Campbell et al., 2012). Los Angeles was seen as an epitome of this concept,
having the highest charter school enrollment in the nation, 153,877 students, approximately 20
percent of LAUSD students. (NCES, 2022). Growing from 50 charter schools in 2003, in 2020
there were 230 independent charters, 226 magnet schools, 48 pilots, and 60 semi-autonomous
schools (affiliated charters, extended site-based management models, network partner schools,
and local initiative schools) (Marsh et al., 2020). The charter school movement extended beyond
district borders as well. In Los Angeles, the county office of education (LACOE) itself chartered
24 schools (eight elementary, three middle, and 13 secondary schools for 6,391 students) in

3
addition to their juvenile court schools, alternative education experiences, two community
college partner high schools, and Head Start programs. These schools and programs reside
within Los Angeles County and consequently mirror the demographics of LAUSD schools
(LACOE, 2023). This proliferation of schools of choice was seen as a means to provide
competition to improve the entire Los Angeles schooling system (Kerchner et al., 2008).
Studies of student achievement in charter schools have offered mixed results (Zimmer &
Buddin, 2007; Zimmer et al., 2019), detractors have noted the high teacher turnover and
questioned the sustainability in charter schools (Burian-Fitzgerald et al., 2004). Further, the
attempts to measure the effects of charter schools have been complicated by the varying
constructions of the school (Buddin & Zimmer, 2005). In Los Angeles, there have been limited
research opportunities, yet Adzima (2017) found that charter school students in LAUSD
performed better on AP tests and the Smarter Balanced Assessment. Charters have served a
larger percentage of students of color and low-income students than traditional public schools
(Cohodes & Parham, 2021; Zimmer et al., 2019). Neither the great hopes of charter advocates
(greater racial integration and increased opportunities for low-performing students) nor the fears
of critics (racial segregation and the denial of access for struggling students) have been fully
realized in the decades since their inception (Zimmer et al., 2019). In Los Angeles specifically,
an arts education course was required to be included in charter petitions due to state graduation
requirements; however, with the exception of specific arts inclusion models, the arts have been
an ancillary consideration of charter schools. This study examined the intersection of arts
education and charter schools in urban environments.
Statement of the Problem

4
Much of the research regarding charter schools has focused on their creation and
governance; by consequence, there has been less data on the operations within the charter school
(Bickmore & Gawlik, 2017; Gross, 2011). What the existing research has indicated is that
charter school principals have an outsized role in the operations of the school, when compared
with traditional public school leaders (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010; Bickmore & Dowell, 2014;
Gawlik, 2008; Gross, 2011). Los Angeles, as a hub of the charter school movement, served as a
perfect opportunity to examine the vast operational role that school leaders play within charter
schools.
Additionally, a national survey of arts offerings by Elpus (2022), showed the arts were
offered at a lower rate in secondary charter schools (37%) when compared with traditional public
schools (92%). Furthermore, Elpus went on to identify an association between the
socioeconomic status of students and the availability of arts education at any school (p.66). There
has been an absence of data to describe how the arts are offered in Los Angeles, however a
visual and performing arts (VAPA) course has remained a high school graduation requirement in
the state of California. This constraint, paired with increased autonomy within their realm, has
led to a unique occasion to study how leaders, with a large weight of influence, approach arts
education within their school.
Many studies have addressed the decision-making process of leaders in broad school
environments (Bickmore & Gawlik, 2017; Major, 2013; Stein & Nelson, 2003), and leaders’
reactions to funding inequities with regards to arts education (Wakamatsu, 2016; Brown, 2016).
But there has been a gap in investigation of how charter school leaders in particular make
decisions with regards to arts education.
Purpose of the Study

5
The purpose of this study was to examine how principals in secondary charter schools
encourage the arts within their school. Interviews with principals sought to understand the
process they conduct to evaluate, select, and supplement arts offerings (Visual Art, Music,
Drama, Dance) at their school-site. Through interviews, the study identified the barriers leaders
perceive in their pursuit of an arts-rich curriculum.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1) How do secondary charter school principals in Los Angeles County Office of
Education (LACOE) describe their experience in deciding how arts education is
prioritized at their school site?
2) What do secondary charter school principals in LACOE identify as barriers to
offering an arts-rich education?
Significance of the Study
There has been an abundance of research detailing the effects of the arts on the brain and
cognitive development (Fancourt & Finn, 2019; Fernandez, 2018). Several studies have
demonstrated anatomic differences in brains comparing those who engage in music to those who
do not, in both children and adults (Gaser & Schlaug, 2003; Groussard et al., 2014; Herholz and
Zatorre, 2012; Huotilainen & Tervaniemi, 2018; Pantev & Herholz, 2011). These differences
presented in multiple brain regions including the corpus callosum, which suggested that
participation in music changed the structure of the brain (Habbi et al., 2017; Habbi et al., 2018).
Such alterations appeared to be positive—art, dancing, making music, and listening to music
were all associated with lower levels of biological stress in daily life and lower daily anxiety
(Linnemann et al., 2018; Linnemann et al., 2016; Martin et al., 2018; Panteleeva et al., 2017).

6
There has additionally been research of students in socially inequitable environments that
suggested positive effects of arts education like increased social inclusion, school attendance,
self-esteem, personal empowerment, self-control, decision-making (Aleman et al., 2017; Coggan
et al., 2008; Chung et al., 2017; Kim, 2017; Lakhani & Istvandity, 2016; Parkinson & White,
2013; Spiegel & Parent, 2018). This wealth of documented brain effects suggests that the
utilization of arts education is a powerful tool to improve education quality and outcomes for
urban schools serving traditionally marginalized communities.
This research study provided insights into the effect that school leaders had on the arts
within their school site. For practitioners, this study illuminated how their colleagues in
leadership approached the arts within the circumstantial limitations and barriers. For researchers,
this study showcased the obstacles that arts education faces within the charter school community
and should spur further research into the specific preference of arts discipline (music, visual,
dance, drama) by specific populations.
Additionally, these barriers that school leaders identified are important to future
policymakers. The policies and laws that govern charter schools in California provide for many
educational opportunities. This study brought to light possible changes that can increase the
capability of schools to support arts education.

7
Conceptual Framework
For this study, the subjects were charter school principals (or equivalent school-leaders)
at secondary schools in the LACOE system. The objective studied was the decision-making
process surrounding supporting arts education at their school site. Charter school principals have

8
an autonomy at their school-site unlike public school principals, and so their influence on all the
systems within the school is more pronounced (Gawlilk, 2008). This study considered the factors
that contribute to the so-called “black box” (Zimmer & Buddin, 2007) of charter school
leadership to understand how schools prioritize an arts-rich curriculum.
The four areas of interest that influenced the decision-making process in this study were
the school budget, school factors, the school-site council, and decision-making theory. The
budget, a combination of sources represented by the flags surrounding the budget oval, is
carefully constructed by the principal. The impact of the recently adopted proposition 28, a
supplemental arts funding source in California, was included to acknowledge the potential
influence on arts programs (Arts and Music in Schools, 2024). The school-site council is a body
of parent, teacher, student, and community members, taking various forms depending on the
charter school. Varying from advisory councils to parent communication boards, these bodies
influence everything from the school culture, curriculum choice, or personnel decisions. The
theories of decision-making offer explanations of how humans make decisions. The rationalism
described by March (1994) and Edwards (2013) explained the ways individuals took in all
available factors to decide. The last area of interest was school factors, encompassing the
curriculum and school personnel. The large turnover rate at charter schools, and its impact on
student performance, made the consideration of faculty and school environment vitally important
(Bickmore & Dowell, 2014) when examining arts education.
The arrows in the visual framework indicate the directional influence for each subject.
Principals dictate the decision-making process, but they also interact with each of the four areas
of interest in the study. Each of those areas also influence each other, as indicated by the
bidirectional areas forming a ring around the decision-making process. Lastly, the large gray

9
circle engulfing all elements within the study is the western art (Eurocentric White) values.
These beliefs are present in all elements of the school system from the curriculum of arts
programs to the need to justify arts programs for their value in raising core competencies like
math grades or SAT scores (Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013; Kraehe et al., 2016; Koza, 2010). The
goal of this study was to examine how school leaders experienced these factors in their efforts to
support arts education.
Definition of Terms
Arts-Rich School- There is no well-accepted definition of what it means to be an art-rich school
(Thomas et al., 2013). The Arts Education Partnership (Ruppert & Nelson, 2006) compiled a list
of twelve elements commonly used to evaluate the strength of an arts program. The indicators
that most apply to this study are: time provided for arts instruction within school schedule,
number and range of arts course offerings, percent of certified or licensed teachers to teach arts
education, presence of designated arts classrooms and use of technology in arts learning presence
of documented arts curricula amount of school and outside funding for arts programs.
Black Box Effect- A term that describes an opaque process. In early usage, it was often applied
to processes that humans could not comprehend, like artificial intelligence or early computer
processing, yet has evolved in common parlance to explain any non-transparent process (Von
Hilgers, 2011).
Decision-Making Theory- Decision-making theory is the theory of how rational individuals
should behave under risk and uncertainty (Edwards, 2013)
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)- This is the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. It was signed in 2015 by President Barack Obama (U.S.
Department of Education, 2016).

10
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)- The NCLB is the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Schooling Act passed during the Bush administration that tied Title I funds to
adoption of achievement testing (U.S. Department of Education, 2003).
Proposition 28- Proposition 28, now codified in the education code as the Arts and Music in
Schools Act, guarantees the funding for arts in public schools through a dedicated funding
stream separate from the other California funding sources (Arts and Music in Schools, 2024).
Title I- A core tenant of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the purpose of Title I was
to provide funds to promote programs for students identified as educationally disadvantaged in
high-poverty areas. These funds were intended to supplement (not supplant) academic programs
for students (Cacio & Reber, 2013)
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of this study provides an overview of the study and introduces the problems
with arts education equity that necessitate the study. In chapter 2, a literature review focuses on
the following areas: the effects and participation of the arts, charter schools' increasing role in
education, and the charter school principal. Chapter 3 describes the methodology for this study
which includes: the sample and population section, interview questions, data collection, and data
analysis. Chapter 4 is a report of the research findings. Chapter 5 is the summary of the fundings,
their implications for practices, conclusions, and recommendations. References and an appendix
conclude the research study.

11
Chapter Two: Review of The Literature
This study sought understand the interplay between arts education in urban environments,
charter school structure, and the experiences of charter school principals. Each portion of this
chapter attempts to explain the complex factors, research, and history of these elements. The
chapter begins with a review of arts education’s place within the United States schooling system,
investigating how the arts affects students and the intersection of access and participation within
urban environments. Next, I inspect the political compromise of charter schools, their philosophy
of autonomy, their growth through the country at large and Los Angeles specifically, and their
demographic makeup. Lastly, I examine the role of charter school principal, the decision-making
process, and the increased autonomy they possess when compared with their traditional public
school counterparts.
Effects and Participation
There has been substantial research on arts education’s effect on the brain. Herein is a
review of these existing areas of research, including studies on early aged children through the
continued intervention of the various disciplines of the arts (originally called singularly art
education, arts education denotes the multiplicity of art genres) (Gadsden, 2008). This also
allows for an exploration of the other studied outcomes of arts education exposure and
participation as well as the theoretical arguments of the unmeasurable benefits of arts education.
Finally, this section reviews the research on the access to and participation in the arts in urban
settings.
Effects of the Arts on Early Aged Children

12
The exposure of young children to the arts has been of interest to many researchers in the
turn of the twenty first century. The legend of the so-called "Mozart effect" captured national
headlines by promising smarter babies, though studies continued to provide mixed results
(Bangerter & Heath, 2004). In her review of research of music and its effect on the brain,
Fernandez (2018) pointed to several studies that showed the differences in brain structures
between musicians and nonmusicians (Gaser & Schlaug, 2003; Herholz & Zatorre, 2012),
specifically highlighting a Schlaug et al. 2005 study that showed an increase in gray matter
density from school aged children receiving music instruction (Schlaug et al., 2005; see also
(Groussard et al., 2014; Habibi et al., 2018; Huotilainen & Tervaniemi, 2018; Pantev & Herholz,
2011)). Fernandez (2018) went on to review research that connects music exposure to brain
function in young children. Babies in different studies have shown positive impacts on
phonological processing, music and speech processing, increased preverbal communication, and
reading skills (Gerry et al., 2012; Ozernov-Palchik et al., 2018; Ribeiro & Santos, 2017; Sylvain
Moreno et al., 2009). Additionally, early arts education has been shown to enhance executive
functions, like selective attention, working memory, and interference controls (Dunbar, 2008;
Petitto, 2008). Perhaps most critically, studies suggested that engagement in childhood arts
activities could predict academic performance across future schooling years, and earlier arts
exposure was associated with greater impact (Hallam & Rogers, 2016; Higueras-Fresnillo et al.,
2016; Mehr et al., 2013; Polinsky et al., 2017; Tsethlikai, 2011; Yang, 2015).
Neuroaesthetics
To attempt to quantify these effects in children and adults, new wings of study have
emerged. Neuroaesthetics is a recent branch of cognitive neuroscience that considers the
empirical research of aesthetics (Pearce et al., 2016). The term, coined by scientist Semir Zeki in

13
the late 1990s, described the relationship between the arts and the brain (Magsamen, 2019). The
basic concept is that core neural mechanisms function as human perception, and the interplay
between how senses absorb external stimuli and the cognition of meaning-making creates a
unique aesthetic experience to each person (Kandel, 2016). This application of cognitive
neuroscience investigated the reaction of the brain in response to a wide spectrum of aesthetic
experience, including interactions of individuals, sensory stimuli, and context (Pearce et al.,
2016). While there is an element of the neuroaesthetics that considered how an audience
experienced art (especially visual or musical performance), there has also been evidence that
performers of art themselves exhibited aesthetic choices. Artistic expertise requires (especially in
music and dance) highly developed motor control and self-monitoring, and the unique ability to
select or inhibit appropriate sensory cues (Habibi et al., 2018; Park et al., 2015; Nalbantian,
2019).
Creativity
Understanding the brain’s interaction with the arts has informed the burgeoning research
on a new path in educational reform – the pursuit of creativity. The ability to think in unique
ways has been shown to benefit individuals in navigating their schooling years and beyond.
Creativity has been an increasingly important element of 21st century culture and our economy,
embodied by the push to STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, mathematics)
education (Conradty & Bogner, 2018; Said-Metwaly et al., 2018). Students’ ability to produce
new ideas, possibilities, or inventions (both real and abstract) has pointed them towards valuable
skills in the workplace, like innovation (Daud et al., 2012; Kim, B. & Kim, 2016; Kim, Y. &
Park, 2012). Lastly, the use of creativity has been associated with increased joy, wonder,
excitement, efficiency, and pleasure in a student’s life (Alves‐Oliveira et al., 2022). In research,

14
it positively correlated to individual well-being, self-expression, and a sense of identity (Collard
& Looney, 2014; Robinson, 2017).
Effects of Arts Education
Beyond the known structural changes within the brain and technical processing of the
world around us, the arts have also been shown to have effects on individuals’ and communities’
health and well-being. In 2019, the World Health Organization published a review of worldwide
studies and the effects of wide-ranging arts disciplines (Fancourt & Finn, 2019). Art activities
were defined as aesthetic engagement, involvement of imagination, sensory activation, evocation
of emotion, cognition stimulation, or even social interaction and physical activity (Fancourt,
2017).
A series of studies described how the arts have been used to promote social inclusion,
skill development, and health promotion (Parkinson & White, 2013). Music interventions in
these studies increased measures of school attendance, self-esteem, cultural empathy, confidence,
personal empowerment, health nutrition, and self-control (Cain et al., 2016). Concurrently, these
interventions decreased findings of anxiety, depression, emotional alienation, truancy,
aggression, attention problems, and behavioral difficulties (Alemán et al., 2017; Cain et al.,
2016; Kim, J., 2017; Parkinson & White, 2013)
Arts venues have been shown to be important in communities, as well, as they provide a
third arena of learning beyond the classroom and home (Coggan et al., 2008; Delgado, 2017;
Heath, 2001). Activities like drama have helped individuals cope with existing socioeconomic
systems and make responsible decisions while simultaneously enhancing well-being, and
reducing exposure to violence (Chung et al., 2017; Spiegel & Parent, 2018). Employment in the

15
arts at housing projects led to increased safety through less incidences of violent crime, enhanced
social cohesion and an overall improved environment.
Even beyond the impacts on individual and community well-being, evidence has
suggested engagement in the arts led to positive physiological effects. Arts activities, like
listening to music or dancing, were all associated with lower levels of biological stress and lower
anxiety in daily life (Grossi et al., 2019; Linnemann et al., 2016; Linnemann et al., 2018; Martin
et al., 2018; Panteleeva et al., 2018).
Arts Education and Learning Outcomes
Though there has been a plethora of recent research of the effects of arts education on
people and their behavior, there have been fewer published studies on the connection of the arts
to school-based learning outcomes (Bowen & Kisida, 2022; McCarthy et al., 2004).
Additionally, the studies examining those effects of arts education exhibited a lack of rigorous
study designs and were only able to point to correlations between taking arts courses and
ancillary benefits (Bowen & Kisida, 2022; Winner & Cooper, 2000). The arts, similar to
movements like multiculturalism, have suffered from an inability to prove a causal relationship
to academic achievement, resulting in their value being unscientific (soft, inexact, emotional, and
inaccurate) (Gadsden, 2008). Arts education has yet to establish a theory of change that can
connect arts education experiences to measurable outcomes (McCarthy et al., 2004). The
American Academy of Arts and Sciences Commission (2021) has advocated for arts education in
every school. Yet, missing from their two-year commission’s report are citations of the arts’
effects on other tested subjects. What may prove to be the connective tissue between the arts and
test score improvement is the study of social-emotional development in students, as research has
suggested that it may have a significant impact on student test scores (Jackson et al., 2020).

16
Studies that measure interpersonal skills, school connectedness, and academic engagement
(measurements that reflect social-emotional development) suggested an increased likelihood that
students were on track (fewer absences, disciplinary infractions, and school-based arrests and
increased graduation rates, four-year college going, and persistence in college) (Jackson, 2018;
Jackson et al., 2020). Some recent studies of arts field trips have shown improvement in
behavioral outcomes like attendance and disciplinary actions (Erickson et al., 2024; Lacoe et al.,
2020). Despite these examples, there has still been a lack of adequate research in authentic
school settings on the benefits of arts education (Bowen & Kisida, 2022).
Bowen and Kisida (2022) attempted to close this research gap by conducting a
randomized controlled trial to measure the effects of arts education with 42 elementary and
middle schools in Houston, Texas. They found that arts education learning significantly reduced
the proportion of students receiving disciplinary infractions by 3.6 percentage points, increased
standardized writing achievement scores by 0.13 of a standard deviation, and increased students’
emotional empathy by 0.07 of a standard deviation (Bowen & Kisida, 2022). While they did not
find significant effects on math, reading, or science achievement, the positive effects shown on
writing achievement scores could be the causal link in academic environments. Additionally,
many assessments now ask students to self-assess and reflect, skills developed through
participation in arts experiences (Bowen & Kisida, 2022).
The Arts Do Not Need to Do Anything to Provide Value
An additional claim to examine in the discussion of the effects of arts education is
espoused by Gaztambide-Fernandez (2013) in his discussion of a new vision of cultural
production in education. In his essay, Gaztambide-Fernandez (2013) posited that the need to
prove the arts' worth limits the effectiveness of arts advocacy. Starting from a deficit position,

17
needing to prove something, put arts advocates in a theoretical corner that they struggle to
emerge from. Yet Gaztambide-Fernandez (2013) cautioned as well that the arts should not be
advocated as not needing to do anything (the 'art for art's sake' argument, recommended notably
by the President's committee on the Arts and Humanities (2011)), as this position is unlikely to
resonate with current neoliberal accountability. Rather, the arts should be understood as an active
form of culture. The arts are cultural elements that already exist in the identities and traditions of
students, teachers, and communities (Gadsden, 2008; Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013). They, more
than any other aspect of education, draw together new, old, traditional, avant-garde, local, global,
mainstream, and cutting-edge elements (Gadsden, 2008). Once this schema is adopted, he
argued, scholars can continue the true battle: overcoming the gatekeeping and control over what
elements of culture can be considered artistic, which has usually been Eurocentric and White,
excluding and othering the experience of people of color in urban environments (Bennett &
Belfiore, 2008; Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013).
Urban Arts Access and Participation
After examining the effects of arts education, I turn to investigate how these offerings are
consumed by students. Kraehe et al. (2016) used a six-dimensional framework (Kraehe, 2014)
for describing equity in their review of empirical studies of education equity surrounding the
arts. The six dimensions of the framework were 1) distribution of resources, 2) access, 3)
participation, 4) recognition, 5) effects, and 6) transformation. In their assessment of the first
dimension, they found various studies that examine how materials and humans are allocated.
However, these studies lacked an equity lens to analyze the distribution or connect to policy
recommendations (New York City Department of Education, 2023; Parsad & Spiegelman, 2012).
They found that urban schools were forced to reduce their arts programming to devote more time

18
to math, language arts teaching and test preparation (Kraehe et al., 2016). Additionally, students
of socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds disproportionally populated schools that
repeatedly failed to meet state accountability standards. Another notable finding from their
analysis of these studies was the isolated nature of the studies, leaving results ungeneralizable to
wider samples (Kraehe et al., 2016). The lack of large programs of research has created a great
challenge to generating an equitable system of arts education. Lastly, the Kraehe et al. (2016)
study examined and revealed the startling distinction between access (to arts education) and
participation (in those activities). Creating accessible arts educational opportunities did not
guarantee that historically underrepresented groups would participate in those opportunities
(Blackwood & Purcell 2014). Of note, the final three dimensions of Kraehe’s (2014) framework
expanded on educational equity but are less relevant to this discussion.
Participation vs Access
The measurement of what arts courses a school offers and their rate of participation has
formed the basis of determining the strength of arts education programs in public schools (Rupert
& Nelson, 2006, Thomas et al., 2013). Much like determining what constitutes art, trying to
define what makes a school arts-rich is difficult because there is no consistent or consensus
characterization (Gaztambide-Fernandez, 2013; Thomas et al., 2013). The President's Committee
on the Arts and Humanities in 2011 described arts-rich schools generally as a school where atrisk students become reengaged in their learning and academically gifted students demonstrate
accelerated learning and sustained motivation (Dwyer, 2011). Rupert and Nelson (2006) created
a table of commonly used indicators to assess the status and condition of arts education, the first
three of which became the basis for Thomas et al.'s 2013 examination of arts offerings in the
state of Texas. Those three indicators were: 1) time or frequency provided for arts instruction

19
within school schedules, 2) number and range of arts course offerings, and 3) percent of students
participating in arts courses. Thomas et al. (2013) were particularly interested in the participation
in arts courses because using course offerings as a sole measure of access may misrepresent the
arts education actually happening at school sites, as the enrollment in classes varied and was
consistently lower in urban areas. Using multiple measures, the study suggested that arts-rich
districts are predominantly in large, non-rural, high schools. Lastly, 76 high schools were at the
bottom quartile of all the various combinations of measurements, indicating that there are
schools that struggle with poor arts education viewed through any lens.
In their analysis of the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA) in 2008 and
prior years, researchers Rabkin and Hedberg (2011), for the National Endowment for the Arts,
tested and ultimately confirmed that participation in arts lessons and classes is the most
significant predictor of arts participation later in life. They showed that long-term declines in
American’s reported rates of arts learning align with a period in which arts education has been
devalued by the public school system in favor of single-minded high stakes testing policies
(Gadsden, 2008; Rabkin & Hedberg, 2011). In 2008, all 18- to 24-year-olds, no matter what their
socioeconomic status as children, were less likely to have had a childhood arts education than the
18- to 24-year-olds of 1982. These declines were not distributed equally across all racial and
ethnic groups; the decline of childhood arts education among White children was relatively
insignificant, while the declines for African American and Hispanic children were 49 percent for
African American and 40 percent for Hispanic children. (Rabkin & Hedberg, 2011). Even if the
arts were being offered, meaningful instruction was not taking place at the same level. For
example, the Chicago public school district budgeted a half-time art or music teacher in

20
elementary schools with up to 750 students, meaning each teacher could have been responsible
for up to 1,500 students. (Rabkin & Hedberg, 2011).
Elpus (2022) attempted to measure the access to arts education across America by
selecting 940 high schools to create a nationally representative sample. His study suggested that
the strongest and most consistent school factor related to arts availability was school size. The
proportion of students eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch was negatively associated with
the probability of offering arts courses, though the urbanicity or region of the country were not
significantly associated. Interestingly, with the notable exception of music, arts courses were not
necessarily less frequently available at schools serving greater proportions of students of color.
Lastly, Elpus (2022) identified public charter high schools as the least likely to offer courses in
the arts. Charter schools were 91% less likely than non-charter schools to offer any visual art
instruction for credit. Similarly, charter schools were 89% less likely than non-charter schools to
offer music courses.
Charter Schools’ Increasing Role in Education
To try and understand how and why charter schools would be so unlikely to offer arts
education classes when compared with their public school counterparts, I first searched to
understand the history of the charter school movement and then their place in the Los Angeles
educational ecosystem. To explore the influence of charter schools in Los Angeles, it was
necessary to understand their proliferation throughout the county over the past decades. This
examination of charter schools begins with the laws and policies that created public charter
schools, continues with the growth of charter school systems within larger urban cities, and
concludes with the student makeup that comprise charter schools.
Laws, Policies, and Programs

21
The passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 created
many new federal policies and funds including, notably, the Title I grant program. Title I grants
were conceived to support programs for students identified as educationally disadvantaged in
high-poverty areas. They were intended to supplement (not supplant) existing academic
programs for students (Cascio & Reber, 2013). These grants were an early attempt at closing the
gap in school spending between richer and poorer states and addressing the educational
inequities in schools. In their study on the effects of that spending, Cascio and Reber (2013)
suggested that Title I may have narrowed that gap in school spending but asserted that Title I
was too small of a program to eliminate the gap entirely. The ESEA was not a complete failure,
however, as it created the leverage for the federal government to withhold federal funds until
districts complied with policy reforms. In their inception, Title I funds were a successful policy
lever to encourage desegregationist policies in southern schools (Cascio, et al., 2010; Cascio &
Reber, 2013). Title I funds would also later be leveraged in the No Child Left Behind policies of
the early 2000s, where states were encouraged to create accountability systems. (Cascio &
Reber, 2013; U.S. Department of Education, 2003; U.S. Department of Education, 2015).
The reauthorization of ESEA in 2002, called No Child Left Behind, tied federal funds to
states' creation of accountability measures for school districts. In a parent’s guide, the U.S.
Department of Education (2003) outlined four common-sense pillars on which the legislation
was built: accountability for results, emphasis on doing what works, expanding parental options,
and expanding local control. The guide continued, stating that schools will test their students
yearly on state-created exams, and these schools must make so-called Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) to be in good standing. The AYP metric was allowed to be determined by each state and
districts that failed to meet those standards would be placed on an action plan to improve scores,

22
with the final possible consequence of restructuring (USDE 2003). Notably, the guide mentioned
that the only subjects required for testing were math and reading, and that additional subjects
may be tested but would not be subject to the accountability measures. That exclusion of other
subjects, especially the arts, would eventually incentivize bolstering math and reading scores by
increasing class time in those subjects and cutting arts programs (Baker, 2012; Kraehe et al.,
2016).
In a memo clarifying the intended uses of Title I funds, the USDE in 2015 attempted to
rectify the misuse of these funds towards targeted and exclusionary practices. A section of the
memo labeled "Dispelling Misunderstandings about Uses of Title I Funds in a Schoolwide
Program" suggested that Title I funds should not be used only to support reading and math
instruction, or to provide remedial instruction to low-achieving students (USDE, 2015). On the
contrary, they advocated for schoolwide programs to upgrade and support entire educational
programs. They additionally pointed out that funds may be used for schoolwide programs
beyond instruction, including improving school climate, attendance, or positive behavioral
interventions (USDE, 2015). The memo lastly described how to consolidate federal, state, and
local funds into a schoolwide program, declaring that a school was not required to maintain
separate fiscal accounting records by federal program that identified the specific activities
supported by each program funds, which gave more latitude to schools and districts to use Title I
funds in the manners described in each school’s improvement plan (USDE, 2016).
The Charter School Movement
An element of school reform that began in the 1990s and gained bipartisan support in the
ensuing decades was the charter school movement. Modeled after grant-maintained schools in
England, charters were imported to the United States by liberal school reformers (Wells et al.,

23
1999). The concept of charter schools allowed many different viewpoints to see their ideals
reflected in them, what Wells et al. (1999) dubbed an "empty vessel". Liberal leaders like Ray
Budde (1989) described charter schools as a teacher-led form of schooling that would empower
educators. Yet advocates with a conservative view saw how charter schools would open a market
system to alter teacher's worth (Finn et al., 1996). This broad range of support led to charter
schools becoming the epitome of middle-of-the-road legislation. In most states charter schools
are autonomous public schools of choice that are accountable for student achievement yet free
from regulations and district oversight (Wells et al., 1999). In their 1999 article, Wells et al.
interviewed fifty policy makers across six states to examine the policies of charter school reform.
They found that despite the perceived cohesive support, charter school reform advocates contain
widely contrasting views. Many policy makers viewed charters as the beginning of the end of
government-run education, while others saw charter school reform as a last chance to save that
system (Wells et al., 1999). The opposing themes from their study, led the authors to claim that
charter school reform was less a consensus, but a fragile bargain between adversaries (Wells et
al., 1999).
Los Angeles Charter School Growth
In Los Angeles, as with cities like New Orleans and Denver, the model of charter schools
progressed beyond two basic offerings (public and charter) of schools in a district. These cities
created a variety of schooling options (public, charter, private, magnet, etc.) to provide a
multitude of options for students, parents, and school faculty (Kerchner et al., 2008; Marsh et al.,
2020; Marsh et al., 2021). This movement of school reform coincided with the No Child Left
Behind act nationally and the social reforms happening throughout Los Angeles (Kerchner et al.,
2008). Part of the rationale for charter schools specifically was the hope that they would provide

24
vigorous competition within the school system, thereby improving the learning of all students
(including those in traditional public schools). The threat of closure was expected to drive
pressure for schools to do their work differently and more efficiently (Kerchner et al., 2008;
Marsh et al., 2020). So-called portfolio districts changed the roles in districts from directing
educational offerings to systematizing choice practices and creating portfolio manager roles
(Marsh et al., 2020). In their 2020 study examining whether portfolio districts truly offered
varied options for students and families, Marsh et al. found that organizational logic within and
across Los Angeles schools appeared to be quite similar, regardless of school characteristics.
There were nuanced differences across schools, such as niche academic programs in some
schools, social-emotional support for students in other schools, and several schools that extended
their community focus beyond the school walls (Marsh et al., 2020). However, the common
metrics like commitment to academics as well as community and family involvement appeared
to transcend differences in context and suggest a deeper connection to logics embedded in
education accountability systems, regulations, and networks (Marsh et al., 2020).
Makeup of Charter Schools
Charter schools allow districts to offer a portfolio of schooling options, and the next
element of this literature review looks at what students and teacher-makeup these schools. The
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2020) revealed that K-12 enrollment overall
grew substantially in size and diversity. From 1985 to 2019, student enrollment in American
public schools grew from 39.4 to 50.7 million, a growth of twenty-eight percent (NCES, 2020).
The percentage of white students fell from 69 percent to 46 percent, while the Hispanic
percentage rose from 11 percent to 29 percent (NCES, 2020). Additionally, the NCES (2020)
showed that between 2009 and 2019, the public charter enrollments increased from 1.6 million

25
students to 3.4 million students and the number of public charter schools increased from
approximately 5,000 to 7,000. Overall, the percentage of public school students who attended
charter schools increased from 3 to 7 percent.
Nationally, students of color were more likely to move to charter schools. This is reflected in the
student body, as 61 percent of charter school students are minority students. Additionally, 49
percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (Cohodes & Parham, 2021; Gross, 2011).
Apart from North Carolina, research suggested that African American students were
disproportionately moving to charter schools, with a greater share of African American students
in these charter schools than the traditional public schools they left, though these differences
have generally been small (Zimmer et al., 2019). Regardless, this supports Cohodes & Parkham's
(2021) findings that nationally charter schools were broadly linked to increases in school
segregation.
Teachers in charter schools also have distinct characteristics. In their study of hiring
practices of charter schools, when compared with public and private schools, Burian-Fitzgerald
et al. (2004) found that charter school teachers are less likely to be certified, have adequate
training in math, and have five or more years of experience. They also found that principals of
charter schools had much more flexibility in their hiring practices, most likely due to the
increased autonomy. While teachers were less likely to have traditional certifications, they also
noted that charter school teachers were more likely to have attended more selective colleges (as
measured by selectivity rankings from Barron’s guide to colleges) than public school teachers
(Burian-Fitzgerald et al., 2004).
Effectiveness of Charter Schools

26
Though charter teachers appear less qualified, that has not necessarily translated into less
effective teaching (Burian-Fitzgerald et al., 2004). Zimmer et al. (2019) dove into the research
from the past decades to synthesize the impact of charter schools on education. Charter school
management has often been referred to as a black box (visible and measurable inputs and outputs
but obscured mechanisms), making it difficult to know whether charter schools have been an
effective turnaround policy for low performing schools. Their findings of effects were mixed –
some positive, others negative, and many with no statistically significant effect on student
achievement. Zimmer et al. (2019) suggested that the fixed-effects studies provide little
consistent evidence of the effectiveness of charter schools relative to traditional public schools.
Similarly, the results of “improving” low performing schools have been inconclusive. Many
locations have not been examined, and the few that have displayed mixed results. More recent
studies coming from lottery-based schools (oversubscribed schools) employing experimental
designs have shown positive effects on student achievements. There has been little to no
evidence that charter schools manipulate the lottery process to skim the highest performing
students (Cohodes & Parham, 2021). Yet it has not been clear whether positive student
achievement results can be generalized to the overall performance of the charter school sector
(Zimmer et al. 2019). In their paper of charter school effectiveness, Cohodes and Parham (2021)
asserted that so-called "no excuse" charter schools generated test score gains at the expense of
their stricter disciplinary practices. Lastly, recent studies have shown a positive effect on noncognitive outcomes like health behaviors, educational attainment, and labor outcomes; however,
there are additional studies that suggested no effect, so it would be premature to draw strong
conclusions on these effects. Overall, research has suggested that charter schools have positive
effects on some students, for some outcomes, in some locations (Burian-Fitzgerald et al, 2004;

27
Cohodes & Parham, 2021; Zimmer et al., 2019). Regardless of how they were envisioned at
inception, the reality of charter schools has been neither a silver bullet solution to saving
education nor the final nail in the coffin of public education.
Examination of the Charter School Principal
The charter school principal (or school leader) is a fascinating role in public education
today. As Gross (2011) pointed out, there has been a great deal of research on the policies,
funding, external accountability, and outcomes of charter schools, but little information about
what is happening inside charter schools as a result of the autonomies granted to them. The black
box of charter school leadership refers to this lack of examination despite their continued growth
throughout the United States (Gawlik, 2018a; Gross, 2011). In this strand of the literature
review, I examine the autonomies granted to these leaders and the decision-making processes
they engage in.
Through interviews with principals, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
(2010) detailed seven autonomies provided to charter schools to produce high results for
students: team development, salaries and professional development, curriculum, scheduling,
finances, lack of school board oversight, and school culture. These autonomies were then
distilled to specific levers that charter principals possess compared with traditional public school
principals. These levers were confirmed in case studies that examine the experience of charter
school principals in a variety of settings: (1) increased control over hiring decisions, (2) ability to
hire teachers from non-traditional sources, (3) conducting frequent classroom observations, and
(4) ability to deal with inadequate teacher performance promptly (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010;
Bickmore & Dowell, 2014; Bickmore & Gawlik, 2017; Brown, 2016; Gawlik, 2008; Gawlik,
2018a; Gawlik, 2018b). Qualitative studies Bickmore and Dowell (2014) and later Bickmore and

28
Gawlik (2017) found that principals were expected to oversee and manage all aspects of the
school, including instructional practices, curriculum, school climate, and financials.
In Gross' 2011 report of national surveys and California case studies, charter school
principals confirmed that the work they engaged with in their schools would not be possible in a
traditional public school. Her report analyzed survey data gathered by the National Charter
School Research Project as well as administrative data and U.S. Department of Education
staffing data (Gross, 2011). Another element of her report explored the hiring practices of charter
school principals, noting that 58 percent of principals reported asking teaching candidates to
demonstrate a lesson compared with 40 percent of school districts that required lesson
demonstration (Gross, 2011)
All these responsibilities and autonomies should theoretically allow for more effective
and efficient school leadership. But research has suggested that the nature of governance creates
new role demands that detract from school leadership (Gawlik, 2018b). Charter school principals
reported working at least 60 hours per week, with many struggling to meet these demands
(Gross, 2011). Without the supports that traditional school districts provide, principals in the
Bickmore and Dowell's 2014 study spent a considerable amount of time on non-curricular tasks
like contract services and personnel. Principals in Gawlik's two (2018a & 2018b) studies
additionally struggled with budgeting and labeled it a barrier to implementing instructional
leadership. Gross' 2011 study found that 70 percent of principals expected to leave their school
in the next five years. Gawlik (2018a & 2018b) suggested that preparation programs provide
additional training to manage the short supply of resources more effectively and efficiently to
support principals' career success.

29
In examination of the 1999-2000 School and Staffing Survey Principal Questionnaire, the
only year a separate charter school questionnaire was administered to all charter schools, Gawlik
(2008) attempted to determine the degree of autonomy experienced by charter school principals.
Her results suggested that charter school principals that have converted from private schools had
higher levels of influence in all areas except for school spending (Gawlik, 2008). Public
conversion principals showed the least amount of influence across standards, curriculum, and
professional development, but demonstrate their highest influence over school spending (Gawlik,
2008). Traditional public school officials had limited autonomy, though their highest level of
autonomy was on evaluating teachers (Gawlik, 2008).
In another study, ten years later, Gawlik (2018a) examined the leadership decisions and
barriers leaders encountered at their school sites. A theme that surfaced from her data that
aligned with previous research (Bickmore & Dowell, 2014) was a focus on statewide testing.
Principals in Gawlik's (2018a) study had a deep understanding of assessment and how to provide
instructional support for them. State testing motivated many of the curricular decisions in these
schools and many leaders choose curriculums specifically designed for test-preparation
(Bickmore & Dowell, 2014; Gawlik, 2018). The autonomy over curricula, instructional practices,
evaluation, and budgeting were seen as unique challenges for charter school leaders. They
presented promising opportunities for policy makers to create more local mentoring and invest in
support systems to allow charter school principals to be a better-informed decision-maker in their
respective schools (Gawlik, 2018a; Gawlik, 2018b; Zimmer & Buddin, 2007).
Decision Making of the Charter School Principal
Given that many charter school principals have a greater decision-making role at their
school site, it is imperative to understand the topic of decision making. Learning how traditional

30
public school leaders make decisions helps to contextualize the impact of charter school leader
decisions. I explore the nature of decision making and then discuss school leader decision
making effects to arts educations.
What is decision making?
The topic of decision making has been studied thoroughly in the past decades; this review
focuses on the economist's view of decision making, which is the process of making choices
among desirable alternatives, with the assumption that people behave rationally (Edwards, 1954;
Robbins & Judge, 2012; Shaked & Schechter, 2019; Yukl, 2006). Rational behavior, as Edward's
(1954) described, is the ability to order choices (in some way) and to make choices to maximize
something. Later theorists divided the decision-making process into five steps: (1) defining the
problem; (2) identifying the alternatives; (3) determining the criteria; (4) evaluating the
alternatives; (5) choosing an alternative (Anderson et al., 2019; Hoy & Tarter, 2010). When
internal or external changes surface, or an earlier decision is found to be wrong or unproductive,
a new decision needs to be made (Shaked & Schechter, 2019). Most of these models, however,
assumed that an individual has complete information, clear goals, and the cognitive capacity to
navigate these complex processes (Jackson et al., 2022; Johnson & Kruse, 2009). School
principals’ decision making does not exist in these ideal conditions. Findlay's (2015) study
measured that principals spend almost half their day in episodic intervals lasting no more than
four minutes, comprising nearly 400 interactions every day. Additionally, principals were often
the conduit between inside (curriculum, classroom, and teacher environments) and outside
(school board, district policies, and community wants) school domains, creating increased
complexity in information handling (Jackson et al., 2022; Shaked & Schechter, 2019). Principals,

31
in effect, became a de facto policymaker, adjusting guidelines to align to their context (Spillane
& Kenney, 2012).
Principals effect on arts programs
In his 2013 case study examining the processes of keeping or severely cutting a music
program, Major (2013) found that the values of the administrators exerted a large influence on
music's place in the curriculum. In focus groups of parents, school board members, teachers, and
administrators, some interviewees saw building principals as the greatest factors in determining
the value of music programs. The study also noted that administrators responded heavily to
political influence (Major, 2013). The administrator focus group themselves felt they could
detrimentally affect the music program through their lack of support (Major 2013). Given that
school leaders can exert an outsized influence on an arts program, it is important to examine the
familiarity and knowledge of arts educational content that principals may possess. In a complex
environment of decision making, principals rely on their training and existing content knowledge
when making decisions (Stein et al., 2003; Wakamatsu, 2016). In their article on leadership,
Stein et al. (2003) analyzed cases from research projects of administrators’ interaction with
content knowledge. They suggested that all administrators have solid mastery of at least one
subject (with an emphasis on the learning and teaching of it), and that they develop expertise in
other subjects by closely examining one element of the subject (what they described as
"postholing") (Stein et al., 2003). Though their study looked at elementary literacy and math
curricula, they described the confidence that administrators gained in planning professional
development and district structures through their content specific knowledge. Stein et al. (2023)
lastly reminded that without content knowledge, leadership is disconnected from the act of
teaching.

32
Wakamatsu (2016) described how administrators disconnected from a subject could
negatively affect teacher evaluation and arts programs. She studied the evolution of dance
education and the effects of school leaders moving to more systematic methods of teacher
evaluation. Unfortunately, the lack of subject knowledge by evaluators impeded teacher progress
(Wakamatsu, 2016). Wakamatsu's survey results indicated that principals perceived dance as
valuable and important, yet there was a lack of knowledge in dance education state standards.
Wakamatsu pointed out this gap in content knowledge was potentially damaging for the success
of dance programs, as the lack of standards knowledge could prevent principals from evaluating
teachers accurately and providing quality feedback. (Wakamatsu, 2016). She suggested
integrating dance education with more widely known subjects to help dance become more
accessible for the evaluator. Lastly of note, a portion of her study asked principals to judge how
budget cuts would affect their dance program or whether additional funding would be used to
hire dance instructors. The responses were mixed: principals acknowledged the importance and
value of dance, but when faced with weighty decisions, could not guarantee it would be a top
priority (Wakamatsu, 2016).
Conclusion
The three columns of knowledge supporting my study all interact in various ways to
influence students, principals, and families. I first inspected the plethora of research examining
the measured and unmeasured effects of arts education, from small children to adults.
Burgeoning fields studying neurological reactions to aesthetics provided insight into future
promotion for the arts. I then examined the degree that arts are being accessed and participated
in, specifically in urban areas. Next, I explored the topic of charter schools, their uneasy political
compromise and their rise in cities like Los Angeles. I inspected the unprecedented control over

33
curriculum and school direction afforded to school leaders of charter schools. Lastly, I explored
those charter school leaders, the decision-making process, and how decisions could affect arts
programs.

34
Chapter Three: Methodology
Statement of the Problem
In urban public schools, the ethnic diversity and size have changed dramatically over the
past fifty years. From 1985 to 2019, student enrollment has grown from 39.4 to 50.7 million
students, and the percentage of Hispanic students has risen from 11 percent to 29 percent (NCES
2020). Kraehe et al. (2016) asserted that this growth in diversity has been predominantly in urban
schools, where there additionally was a higher population of disadvantaged students. The
accountability movement at the turn of the century has coincided with a decline in schoolfacilitated arts exposure (Gadsden, 2008). Schools that failed to meet accountability standards
were forced to reduce their arts programming to devote more resources to math and language arts
test preparation (Kraehe et al., 2016).
In their study of to determine what factors lead to an "arts-rich" educational experience,
Ruppert and Nelson (2006) introduced 12 factors that researchers can use to measure the level of
quality arts education. In their examination of secondary schools in the state of Texas, Thomas
and colleagues (2013) looked at course offerings as well as class size to investigate the quality of
arts instruction students receive. Their work showed that urban schools offer less courses and
have lower enrollments than their suburban counterpoints (Thomas et al., 2013). Additionally, a
national survey showed the arts are being offered in charter schools at a lower rate than in public
schools (Elpus, 2022). The role of the charter school principal is a fascinating position that offers
more autonomy in almost all components of leadership than the public school counterpart.
Principals are asked to manage the logistics of the school while serving as the instructional and
curricular lead. In the state of California, offering arts education classes is a requirement of
graduation, and support for arts education funding is growing through state bills like Proposition

35
28 (Arts and Music in Schools, 2024). It is imperative to understand how these school leaders
build systems to support arts education at their school site, and to learn the barriers they face in
this implementation. The purpose of this study was to explore the experience of school principals
in their endeavors to provide students with an arts-rich education.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the experience of charter school Principals and
their relationship with arts education at their school site. That experience was best explored by a
qualitative study design, which can investigate a problem while honoring the complexity of that
phenomenon (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The study examined how charter school principals
prioritized the arts and the barriers they faced in that implementation.
Research Questions
1) How do secondary charter school principals in LACOE describe their experience in
deciding how arts education is prioritized at their school site?
2) What do secondary charter school principals in LACOE identify as barriers to offering an
arts-rich education?
Selection of the Population
For this study, a non-probabilistic measure was taken to select the population. Purposive
sampling, specifying the characteristics of the population of interest and locating them to conduct
the study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017), was the most appropriate choice for this study. Note that
this type allowed the researcher to amass a representative population (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017). The population of this study was secondary charter school principals within LACOE. This
is a distinction from the schools that are chartered by LAUSD, though they are similar in all
other ways. The county lists 13 secondary charter schools in their directory for the 2022-2023

36
school year (LACOE, 2023). Merriam and Tidsell (2016) advocated for adding participants to
the study until a point of redundancy is reached, the exact number of interviews to reach that
point was unclear before interviews began. There were five school leaders selected to be
interviewed. All types of charter school (start-up, conversion, affiliated and independent) and all
types of charter models (curricular, pedagogical, student body) were be considered for this study.
Design Summary
For this study, a qualitative approach was necessary to examine the experiences and
beliefs of the target population. Through online interviews, data were gathered that spoke to the
unique experience of participants. Chapter three addresses the manner in which the data were
gathered. Chapters four and five analyze and interpret that data.
Methodology
A semi-structured interview protocol was applied for this study with each participant.
This mode uses questions and topics that serve as a guide in a conversation to allow the
researcher flexibility (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The personal aspect of decision-making, and
the unique structure of charter school organizations, pointed to a semi-structured protocol as
practically effective for gathering useful data. All the research questions were addressed using
this interview data.
Qualitative Instrument
The qualitative data were gathered using interviews, with each question designed to
address the research questions and conceptual framework guiding the study. The interview
protocol (see Appendix A) consisted of an introduction, 14 questions, and a closing. The 14 basic
questions were supplemented by probes and follow-ups to clarify important pieces of
information (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). A researcher journal was kept during this interview

37
period as a method to audit the decisions made in the study, including the selection of
participants and memos of potential bias.
Data Collection
Each of the 13 school leaders was contacted through email and offered the opportunity to
participate in this research. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommend, a cover letter informed
each participant of the purpose and scope of the study, their guarantee of anonymity, as well as
their right to participant (or withdraw) in the study. The letter explicitly stated that their views
and stances on this subject are valued, which helped with developing rapport with subjects
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Three principals responded to the initial email and coordinated an
online interview. A second and third round of email communication was sent to potential
participants who had not responded, followed by phone contacts to the charter schools during
school hours and messages were left with school personnel or voicemail. Four additional
principals responded to these follow-up attempts, one declining and three interested in
participation. During this period, I was instructed to give a research presentation to a charter
management organization’s board in order to permit their schools’ participation in the study. The
presentation and deliberation of the board happened in two successive monthly meetings, which
delayed data collection from those potential schools. Ultimately, my research proposal was
accepted by the board and two final interviews were coordinated.
The in-depth interviews were conducted with five participants through the Zoom online
platform with informed consent of the subject in approximately 45 minutes. The use of this
platform allowed me to record each interview in full and allowed for the participants to take the
interview in the setting of their choice. This online platform required additional security
measures, including the downloading of cloud recordings and transcripts to an external hard

38
drive (kept securely). Follow-up phone calls or emails were sent if I needed to clarify pertinent
information regarding research questions.
Agee (2009) stated that the process of developing qualitative research is to examine how
questions will affect the participants lives. It was the aim of this study to conduct data collection
activities in a manner that did not create hostile situations. However, as preliminary data showed
that charter schools offer arts at lower rate from traditional public schools (Elpus, 2022), the
examination could have been off-putting for principals to be faced with the lack of arts offerings
at their school site. It was incumbent upon me to not approach this study from a deficit mindset.
As Smith (2021) reminded, it is important to lift up and center the humanity of subjects. If these
tensions between arts offerings were the result of cultural differences, Milner (2007) advised that
the researcher should actively engage and be forthright with these communities, which this study
achieved by centering the voice and experiences of participants.
For each leader’s interview, I also conducted a document review of their school’s
website. I navigated through their course offerings, curricular department, and school
philosophy. I looked for their charter’s organizational model as well as their approach to arts
education communicated on their site. These searches helped guide the directions of follow up
probes and questions.
Data Analysis
To analyze the interview data, I categorized and coded data using Atlas.ti, a qualitative
data analysis platform. I used Zoom’s built in transcription feature to collect the transcriptions,
listening and correcting any errors. Before uploading transcripts in the program, I implemented
synonyms using the Greek alphabet. The five participants were named Alpha, Beta, Gamma,
Delta, and Epsilon. I employed an inductive coding method, letting the codes develop as I coded

39
the data (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). I highlighted and categorized using descriptive labels like
“cultural barrier” or “student voice”. I tabulated the contributions for each member and reviewed
the coded categories for cohesive themes and illustrative examples. I compared themes with my
initial document analysis and memos from interviews to triangulate data.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Throughout the study, I employed various methods to ensure the credibility and
trustworthiness of this qualitative study. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that preferences and
personal choices can have an undue influence on a study. As an arts educator (Music teacher), I
was biased towards the positive effects and continued support of music education. This bias
could easily have been borne out through follow up probes and the design of the interview
protocol with research participants. Personal experiences as a charter school educator may have
biased the research results towards a deficit mindset when addressing arts education, assuming
that school leaders were not pursuing the arts with full resources. Maxwell (2013) advocated for
seeking respondent validation by soliciting feedback from the people being studied. I employed
this by conducting member checks with the data and conclusions reached with each interview.
Additionally, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested conducting member checks to ask
participants whether an interpretation “rings true” (p. 246), it is important that their perspective
was discernable.
Additionally, the study design incorporated methods of triangulation, which Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) suggested as a method to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of a study. By
collecting diverse forms of data and information through interviews, surveys, publicly available
school data, the study hoped to bolster the findings of similar research.
Role of the Researcher

40
In qualitative research, the instrument to conduct the study is the researcher, and as
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated, the human instrument has shortcomings and biases, therefore
it is imperative to identify the biases and of power and positionality and monitor throughout the
length of the study. Furthermore, research design needs to consider ethical issues anticipated
prior to research and those that arise during research (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Glesne, 2011;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
My role as a researcher and music teacher and the relationships with potential
participants may have influenced their participation in the study. As a White male educator, I am
biased towards the effectiveness of the public school system (as I am a product of such). My
positive attitude and disposition may have coerced principals to participant in this study,
assuming that my interest in this matter may have benefit their students and school community.
Though the results of my study reflected the current state of arts education in charter schools,
these results may be interpreted by others as shortcoming of charter schools.
As leaders of charter schools, principals are advocates for the charter system and they
may produce harm for charters if the results of the study are interpretable as harmful for students
enrolled in charter schools. Many charter schools are a part of larger charter organizations, with
specific visions and philosophies about curriculum. A principal’s participation in this study could
have been harmful if their leadership ran counter to the espoused values of an organization, or if
the results of the study are used as propaganda by charter detractors for political gain. It was
imperative to maintain the anonymity of participants, and to guarantee the effectiveness of the
security measures previously outlined.
Summary

41
This qualitative study used a semi-structed interview format to collect qualitative data.
The data collected from charter school principals was analyzed to target the two research
questions: how do secondary charter school principals in LACOE describe their experience in
deciding how arts education is prioritized at their school site? And what do secondary charter
school principals in LACOE identify as barriers to offering an arts-rich education? These
findings are presented in chapter four, with an accompanying discussion in chapter five.

42
Chapter Four: Findings
This study examined the experience of charter school leaders regarding arts education. It
sought to understand how leaders navigate the intricacies of school and culture building to
support the arts as well as identified the barriers that leaders perceive in this process.
This study and data collection process was guided by the following research questions:
1. How do secondary charter school principals in LACOE describe their experience in
deciding how arts education is prioritized at their school site?
2. What do secondary charter school principals in LACOE identify as barriers to offering an
arts-rich education?
The findings are presented below and are organized by the two research questions. For each
research question, there were a few themes that presented themselves during the study as well as
a summary of each theme and its relation to the research question. Finally, there is a summary of
all the findings to conclude the chapter.
Participants
Participants in this study were all leaders of charter schools in Los Angeles County,
chartered through the county's office of education (LACOE). This is a distinction from schools
that are within Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) but not a difference, as these
schools are similarly located within Los Angeles County and may even be locally adjacent to
schools chartered by LAUSD. Narrowing the study parameters to LACOE secondary schools
resulted in a potential pool of 13 schools, of which seven responded to email and eventually, five
leaders were interviewed. This study used a semi-structured interview format to obtain data from
these school leaders. The leaders consisted of both men and women, schools that ranged from 70
to 700 students served, and schools that had grades 6-12 or 9-12 (for this study, leaders of grades

43
6-12 schools were asked to focus on their grade 9-12 arts offerings). The school leaders referred
to themselves as principal or head of school. Some were founding members of the charter
schools they led, while others were brought in from outside organizations. Their experience in
leadership ranged from their first leadership position to multiple decades and positions within
school leadership. To ensure anonymity, study participants will be referred to by their Greek
alphabet pseudonym. Table 4.1 provides additional information on the interview participants.
Table 4.1: Interview Participants
Background information of interview participants
Leader
Pseudonym
Gender Years of
Experience in
Education
Years of
Experience in
Leadership
Years Leading at
School Site
Alpha F 17 7 1
Beta M 23 15 2
Gamma F 20 15 9
Delta M 22 16 1
Epsilon M 16 7 4
Document Review
For each of the leadership in-depth interviews, a search of the leader’s school website
was completed. For some schools, this involved navigating through an organization page to the
specific school, yet other schools had a dedicated website. I began each search from the listed
website contact on the LACOE information page. In most cases, school websites contained
course offerings, departments within the school, and curricular philosophy. These document
reviews helped to craft the direction of interviews and understand the setting of each leader at
their school site.

44
Charter School Model
An integral element of portfolio districts in cities like Los Angeles is the diversity of
choices available to parents and students. To differentiate themselves between the various
options, charter school founders often chose to align their school with specific models. Roughly
two-thirds of charter schools are specialized in an array of foci, including arts, classical, STEM,
language immersion, CTE, etc. (Huang & White, 2023). In their 2022 study, White and Huang,
identified 68 different specialized models that charter schools employed, divided into three broad
categories: curricular focused, pedagogical focused, or student body focused. Results on state
tests in California suggested that charter schools modeled around ELA, classics, Montessori, art,
and STEM performed better in English language arts (ELA) and math in relation to state and
district testing averages (Huang & White, 2023). An aspect of the document review for this study
also determined each school’s model, two schools were curricular focused (STEM), two were
pedagogically focused (small-school model, project-based learning), and one was student body
focused (twenty-four-hour learning model). It is relevant to highlight that none of the schools in
this study employ an arts focused model.
Research Question One Results
Research question one asked the following: how do secondary charter school principals
in LACOE describe their experience in deciding how arts education is prioritized at their school
site? The participants in the study all approached this question from their unique perspective,
some choosing to view prioritization as an absolute, while others qualified their prioritization
within the context of their sphere of influence. All the leaders spoke to the importance of arts
education within charter schools, and many spoke to the arts exposure they strived for at their
schools. Leader Alpha spoke of art’s power to “elevate the consciousness of our scholars”. They

45
continued, remembering their college experience studying the works of Amiri Baraka, Frida
Kahlo, and Jean Michael Basquiat, who used their work to communicate the need for social
change. Alpha said they often think about what that experience will be like for their students,
children from underrepresented communities, who miss out on culture “with a capital ‘C”. They
spoke of striving to expose students to that so-called “capital ‘C’ culture,” the culture of
Whiteness, through visits to museums, theaters, etc. to bridge that gap. Speaking to a philosophy
of school choice, leader Beta echoed that students must be introduced to the arts first, so they can
gain experiential knowledge before making a choice, saying that "you gotta be exposed in order
for you to really have choice". This affinity for arts exposure was reiterated by leader Epsilon,
saying that arts are a vital component of educating the whole child. "We are so much focused
drilling the same thing again and again, it kills the creativity and the art". To that end, the
interviews revealed three repeated themes in how leaders prioritize arts education: empowering
student choice, leveraging collaboration, and expanding future offerings.
Empowering Student Choice Within the Bounds of an Existing Model
All (100%) of the leaders spoke to the benefit that small class size provides to their
student feedback mechanisms. As an element of their school’s model, this intentional design
allowed them to foster a strong personal connection to students. In the data analysis, “student
voice” and “gathering feedback” were coded a combined 58 times, the highest occurrence of
codes related to research question one. This relationship to immediate student feedback was how
leaders felt they prioritized the arts education in their school. Leaders Alpha and Beta spoke of
being in the classrooms themselves to receive instant feedback on the direction of their arts
classes. Leader Beta elaborated saying that while many plans might look good on paper, there is
often an implementation gap with their student population. They stressed that they needed "to see

46
what it looks like in practice...I need to lay eyes on it. I need to ask questions and to also coach,
to give feedback". They cared deeply for the success of their students, saying that their
leadership team would frequently assess how students were interacting with goals and objectives
to ensure they don’t lose momentum by taking “the foot off the gas”. Leader Alpha declared that
one of the reasons they chose to work for a charter organization was the priority to get principals
in the classroom coaching and observing instruction. “I have a pretty good pulse on what’s
happening in my art classes”. They focused on the rigor level in classrooms and communicated
to students that their work was valued by public displays and showcases throughout the campus.
This close link to the student experience came up multiple times with each interview. Leader
Gamma spoke about a practice at their school-site incorporating student panels. The process
began with teachers proposing their units to the admin team, who reviewed the courses for
appropriate standards and goals. The teachers then shared with each other their potential units,
looking for cross-curricular opportunities. Lastly, they convened a student panel: "we interview
the student panel about what's…happening in their lives, what they're interested in like, what do
they want to learn more about this year". The students additionally gave feedback on the
proposed units from their teachers and offered suggestions on topics for the year. Leader Alpha
boasted, ‘“So now, it's this co-creation of what we're learning. And the student is more
empowered in that experience because they participated in the planning”.
Two of five (40%) leaders spoke of their own versions of student panels as a means of
giving direct feedback on current learning objectives, which gave leaders the impetus to respond
quickly to respect the artistic interests of students. This aligned with the ideal benefits of charter
schools, principals are given the autonomy to act swiftly when responding to real-time data
(Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010; Bickmore & Gawlik, 2017). Leader Beta expanded on this process,

47
lauding students’ unfiltered response: "students are going to tell you how they feel. Like, I don't
like this, this is boring. Oh, I expected x… and this is not happening". Research has suggested
that simply making arts accessible is not enough for students in urban settings, students (and
especially those empowered by the choice philosophy of their school) were not guaranteed to
participate in generic arts offerings (Blackwood & Purcell, 2014; Kraehe et al., 2016). By
listening and responding to the voice of students, leaders were more able to foster an arts
education that resonated with students.
Championing a Culture of Collaboration to Include Arts
Leaders were creative in their approach to increasing arts education in their curricula. A
second theme that emerged from 100% of interviews was the collaborative approach to arts
education that leaders enacted. The code “collaboration” was identified 46 times in the study, an
average of 9.2 mentions per interview. By unearthing the hobbies and skills and empowering
other adults on campus, principals were able to include arts education into every part of the
school day, especially when it was not explicitly included in their school model. Leader Alpha
interrupted themself during a discussion of curricular arts offerings because they felt the need to
include that their most sought-after program at school was a dance club that is run by a school
counselor, a former professional dancer. The students performed during pep rallies and other
events, and leader Alpha labeled it the most codified program on campus. Leader Delta spoke of
a math teacher on their staff with multiple credentials who will be teaching a film class, “he’s a
Swiss army knife”.
This again, addressed the autonomy that charter principals have. While there have
historically been mitigating factors like regulations and budget restrictions (discussed later),
charter school principals manage creatively to provide all elements of a high school education

48
(Bickmore & Dowell, 2014; Gawlik, 2008). Leader Beta spoke to their collaborative method,
saying that "we have a number of people here who may be in one role. But the arts is also what's
in their heart." They earlier had mentioned a member of their leadership team who, though they
had pursued a finance degree in college, was an accomplished violinist. This individual modeled
the balanced attitude they hoped to foster in their students, keeping the arts connected to their
life. Many of the leaders interviewed spoke about their unequivocal support of teachers,
volunteers, or guest lectures to include arts at their school site. Leader Alpha recalled their
constant search of muralists to come and work on campus, “to tell stories, to uplift the
contributions of people of color”. Voicing the powerful metaphor of their half-finished mural in
2020, leader Gamma recalled that the local artist that had been collaborating with the school was
unable to complete their work on the day the school abruptly closed. They remembered he “left
like one of a stroke… it's such a representation of how it was. It was like they're painting. And
then we'll shut down. So, he left”. The frustrations of online teaching led the muralist to resign
their position the next year, and so the painting remained unfinished. Leader Alpha relayed
some recent positive collaboration with the community, a practice that they helped to make a
requirement for all teachers, which led to increased arts integration. Leader Gamma discussed
partnerships with an architect to help render geometry designs, and a local artist who helped
students in crafting self-portraits as a unit in a philosophy course.
The push for collaborative design in curriculum supported current movements in
education, preparing students for increased creativity (Conradty & Bogner, 2018, Saisd-Metwaly
et al., 2018). This has been embodied in the STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts,
math) movement, which many leaders referenced in interviews. Leaders discussed their
philosophy of leading collaboratively, leader Beta stressed the community support they advocate,

49
saying "As we are designing… I'm looking at… how can we stack hands? And how can we, you
know, support"
Leaders Gamma and Epsilon spoke of the collaboration they pursued through dual
enrollment with local community colleges. These mutually beneficial partnerships allowed a
community college to disseminate professors in a variety of disciplines, including traditional
subjects such as English and math, as well as arts disciplines like drama, music, and visual arts.
The community colleges increased their enrollment and gave professors a unique teaching
environment. The high school students received college credit for the classes, and the classes
allowed schools to offer a wider range of subjects without needing to hire a full-time teacher.
Leader Epsilon described the expanded visual arts courses that they could now offer students, as
the community college offered Art-100 through Art-103 (an art history course) taught by college
professors. This was a huge leap from their only previous option, a digital arts course which was
an online-only course supervised by a non-arts teacher. While a few schools invited college
professors to their campus, leader Gamma's school accommodated students’ schedules so
students could attend class at the community college. This provided all the previous benefits
mentioned and alleviates infrastructure problems, as students could work in an art studio or a
music performance venue.
Future Arts Offerings
As institutions rebounded from the barriers created from the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020,
a final theme that leaders mentioned to prioritize arts education was a focus on the future arts
offerings they will be able to provide for students. This, as well, was present in 100% of leader
interviews, and 80% of interviews had “expanded future offerings” coded four or more times.
Using the previously mentioned collaborative spirit and feedback loop of stakeholders, leaders

50
identified the future pathways being built for arts education. Leaders looked for ways to solidify
the arts presence on their campus and within their model. Leader Epsilon cited their previously
mentioned partnership with a community college that will result in three new arts and drama
offerings for ninth grade students. They described that the excitement and success over the
community college partnerships will cause the breadth and depth of offerings to grow in future
years. The relatively new arrival of charter schools has not afforded leaders the infrastructure
that many public schools possess. Charter schools, in many cases, have been located in office
buildings, or co-located on public school grounds with limited access to district facilities
(Kerchner et al., 2008). As these schools have gained institutional knowledge, leaders can
forecast how to better offer the specific needs of arts education. Leaders Beta and Delta spoke of
the active building of their permanent school sites in their organization. Leader Beta elaborated
that their school would include an auxiliary gym specifically devoted to dance. They admitted
that their current campus limited their capabilities, but their permanent campus will allow them
to “fully execute our arts”. Whereas leader Delta, still in the planning stage of their permanent
campus, spoke about using a portion of their founding capital to create an arts space: "we want to
build a new building on some of the area that we have. We're trying to see what funding we can
receive for the build, but kind of like a STEAM center...like a building that has been built
primarily for the arts". They later spoke on the power of a dedicated room for its instructional
purpose, how the acoustic paneling of a music room or the mirrors and barres of a dance studio,
prime an individual to succeed. This belief in their ability to provide future opportunities
showcased the confidence that charter school leaders have in the autonomy of their leadership
(Bickmore & Dowell, 2014; Bickmore & Gawlik, 2017).
Discussion Research Question One

51
The exploration of leaders’ experiences offered much insight into how leaders work
within their charter model’s structure to support the arts at their school site. The evidence
suggested that leaders hold the arts in high esteem and search for ways to weave it into the fabric
of their students’ experience. Responses to research question one revealed several strategies that
leaders use to prioritize arts education at their school site. Leaders expressed that they
collaborated with adults in various roles on their campus, utilizing teachers with additional
training outside of their credentialed subjects (like dance and theater) to increase the footprint of
arts experiences at the school. Leaders also heavily relied on the direct feedback of students to
guide their decision-making process and to best utilize their resources. Lastly, leaders constantly
looked toward the future to expand their arts offerings. Most leaders in the study were renting
their current buildings, or in temporary locations. They recognized the arts need to be in an
appropriate setting to be taught effectively. Additionally, by expanding their future arts offerings,
leaders ensured that arts education could be prioritized at their schools, while also responding to
the needs of the community. All the leaders spoke to the importance of arts education within
schools of all types, which aligns with the current research on the benefits of arts education
exposure (Cain et al., 2016; Chung et al., 2017; Fancourt & Finn, 2013).
All five participants in the study employed a charter school model that focused on
elements of education that relate to, but did not emphasize arts education. Leaders in the study
looked for avenues to increase arts exposure in their model, and only one participant identified
arts integration as a realistic instructional method. Leader Gamma discussed their experience
with arts integration philosophies at a previous institution but did not identify its use in their
current leadership. Broadly defined by the Kennedy center, arts integration is education where
students construct meaning and demonstrate understanding through an art form or creative

52
process (Silverstein & Layne, 2010). As a school model, studies have suggested that arts
integration curriculum has positive effects on urban students’ academic achievement, and
additional analysis has suggested that comparatively larger developmental (executive function)
gains can result from an arts integration program (Moss et al., 2018). The arts have remained a
required course to graduate in the state of California, and that was the extent to which four of
five participants have arts education present within their school model. The fifth school went
beyond these requirements by having arts inclusion practices in their curricular units.
Research Question Two Results
The second research question in the study asked participants to identify the barriers they
face in pursuit of providing an arts-rich education. The opinion of arts education has shifted
positively recently, yet the arts have still lacked funding support and educational policy value
(Gadsden, 2008). Even with the increased autonomy that charter school leaders possess, this
question sought to find the systemic blockages that leaders still perceived, both within their
school model and the larger school system. The COVID-19 pandemic caused many schools,
including the charters in this study, to examine their structures and procedures to equitably serve
students. This research question intended to inform school leaders and policymakers regarding
the still existing remnants of these structures. There have been no shortage of potential
impediments that leaders could have identified, as schools in general and specifically urban
schools remain underfunded (Kraehe et al., 2016). The leaders in this study identified barriers of
two different themes, tangible and intangible. The physical forces leaders identified included
items such as funds for staff and building infrastructure. Additionally, participants regularly
identified some of the ethereal barriers like the clash of culture, the perception of arts, education
in the community, as well as the competing priorities of the leaders.

53
Staffing
A barrier that 100% of leaders identified was the challenge of staffing their classrooms
with arts educators. The “staffing” barrier was coded 40 times, a mean of 8 times per interview.
Leader Delta discussed that "getting the right staff" is a top tier trial that leaders face, putting
their staffing issues in the context of planning and allocating funds for a specific arts discipline.
They explained that finding a teacher was not difficult, but that the decisions that create that job
opening, like submission of a-g coursework and approval from their charter organization, all
need to be completed prior to interviews. Leader Delta continued by saying that those hiring
events usually coincide with the testing season towards the end of the school year, and it became
difficult to sustain the momentum needed to bolster arts offerings.
Yet even when a leader could devote the time and energy to conduct a search, there were
still barriers. Leader Gamma, a leader with personal connection and passion for visual arts, spoke
of their continued efforts to offer an arts class at their small school. They remembered asking the
other founding director yearly if their school could support an art class. At the time their entire
school was forty students, and the other founder denied their request each year saying, “it's an
extra”. It took three years before their budget could support an art teacher, and even then, they
had to begin with a part-time hire. Leaders Gamma and Epsilon spoke of the frustration of not
being able to offer teachers full time positions. Leader Epsilon made the difficult choice to not
offer a part-time drama position, even in the face of student interest. Leader Gamma tried to fill
their positions creatively, saying that it's "hard to hire somebody to teach one class...we can't fill
the classes like in other schools". But, in many cases they could piecemeal together positions,
letting individuals work in the office during periods they did not teach. Unfortunately, after all

54
the effort and accommodations, leader Gamma’s newly hired teacher left the organization just 3
months into that school year, leaving the school limited educational options to finish the year.
Forty percent of leaders spoke of the barrier that credentialing causes when finding the
right staff in the building, which aligned with research that charter schools often struggle with
teacher certification issues (Burian-Fitzgerald et al., 2004). Leader Epsilon reflected on the
recent scenario that caused their school to let go of a teacher and withdraw their planned AP
studio art course. Leader Gamma spoke about the difficulty of getting working artists in the
classroom, and the systemic roadblocks in their way:
"They can't be approved because they don't have a credential. So, then you have to hire a
credential teacher to be with that person. So now the school is paying double. Also paying
somebody more because they're not a teacher, and they are used to making more money. So now
you're paying for like the professional fees, plus you're paying a teacher with a credential to then
be for one class.”
Those double-teacher scenarios, common in arts and career technical subjects, could have the
potential to be incredibly moving, culturally responsive, relevant, and innovative. Yet, without
previous success, leaders found it a difficult proposition to financially justify.
Cultural Barriers
Much research has pointed to the discordant relationship between the culture of accepted
curriculum and the culture of the communities experiencing that curriculum (Bennett & Belfiore,
2008; Gadsden, 2008; Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013; Milner, 2007). One hundred percent of the
leaders in the study identified the disconnect that families sense in relation to the view of
traditional arts education. Sixty percent of participants coded “cultural barrier” more than once in
their interview, with one participant asserting the barrier a study-high 13 times. While discussing

55
their interactions with stakeholders, leader Alpha explained that parents in the community they
serve need to be shown the reasons for arts education, as “those are trenches that they have not
navigated before”. Leader Delta, similarly, took ownership of the problem, saying that they
could do a better job creating possibilities. They described the guilt of recently attending a
charter school leadership conference and witnessing a culturally authentic performance by a
charter school dance and music ensemble, “…and parents, I don’t think, realize that those things
are possible”. Leader Alpha elaborated that in their opinion, "immigrant communities,
communities of color, marginalized communities have not had many opportunities to interact
with the arts and gauge their interest in the arts”. Leader Alpha contrasted that to affluent and
wealthy communities, where traditional arts education is woven throughout their educational
career. They continued that affluent communities allow for the arts to be an option for their
children because they are economically secure, that “they have the privilege to think about art
education”. Leader Alpha relayed that parents in their community “think about economic
security first, and they want that for their children. And I understand why. And so, art education
is not at the top of their minds”.
Leader Epsilon confirmed that students and families "want to see value" on their
education. Epsilon described that post-COVID, students are reluctant to go to college and rack
up student debt; students feel the need to start earning money for their families. This focus on
fast results was echoed by leader Gamma, who spoke to the early stratification of student's
choice. They described the messaging to students pressures them into selecting a pathway
program, and "if you don't get into a pathway program when you're 14, you're not gonna be able
to go to college, or you're not gonna be able to head up a job”. They described that the creation
of portfolio districts forces teenagers to choose their major concentration and that these

56
concentrations do not leave students with the space to explore arts education. Lastly, leader
Alpha concluded that in their experience,
“There's a fraction of society that believes kids go to school to learn so that they can be
economically advantaged and engage in consumption. And not ask questions, and be obedient
citizens, and that's not the kind of education I'm trying to produce for my scholars".
Charter Qualities
The qualities and structures that have made charter schools unique and flexible could also
feel constraining for leaders trying to find their way. “Rigidity of resources” was coded 16 times,
“infrastructure” was coded 12 times, and both were present in 100% of participant interviews.
“Recruiting” and “competing priorities” were present in 40% of interviews (coded 4 times each).
These topics all related to the charter school model that participants employ. When speaking
about the realities of not owning their own space, leader Epsilon put it plainly, they could hire
two teachers instead of paying for rent every year. Beyond not owning their own space, leaders
struggled with the inherited infrastructure of the school. Leader Beta lamented that it was too
much of a financial hurdle to purchase a full set of musical instruments, unlike the traditional
public school their daughter attended which had an existing inventory of instruments. They
continued that their school site did not have the practice spaces for those students, or areas for
the school’s vast goals, saying, “We wanna do theater, you know, on a grand level. But we don't
have an auditorium". Leader Beta relayed that obtaining a rental space for future productions
would require substantial funding, their team discovered, for the multiple performances and
rehearsals.
Ironically, the benefits of small-school model also limited a leader's ability to provide arts
education. Leader Gamma, amid describing their ideal arts offerings, admitted that the only path

57
towards achieving those goals was to grow their school with more students. They felt that the
only way to expand their innovative programs distills to recruiting more students, antithetical to
their charter’s philosophy. Lastly, leaders acknowledged that the advantages of being an
autonomous leader often puts competing priorities on their agenda. Leaders Epsilon and Delta
both spoke to the increased pressure they felt to manage subjects tested by the state. Leader Delta
described that they felt overwhelmed trying to manage administration of their various tests, like
SBAC and CAST, while simultaneously needing to defend when scores are not rising. They
continued, "there's so many other things that get put on my plate where I'm like, I want to do this,
but I'm trying to find the time to do it". Leader Epsilon agreed that other subjects got pushed to
priority during testing seasons, like math and science. They said that while there was funding for
their art program (through proposition 28), it was still limited compared with other subjects.
Leader Epsilon relayed a story of attending a STEAM exhibition for charter schools that
displayed student projects to the public. They hoped the exhibition would exemplify lifting the
arts to the level of other STEM components. Unfortunately, leader Epsilon continued, while they
saw a few arts-focused projects, the exhibit was overwhelmingly science and engineering
displays. They recalled supervisors at the exhibition discussing how to strengthen schools’
robotics and engineering programs, while notably leaving the arts out of the academic discourse.
Discussion Research Question Two
Striving towards an arts-rich environment has been seen a daunting task with optimal
conditions; charter school principals faced a variety of barriers, both physical and philosophical,
in this pursuit. Principals reported that they faced barriers when attempting to hire and retain the
appropriate staff for arts education. Leaders expressed difficulty aligning their hiring practices to
the testing calendar, and faced hurdles being unable to offer teachers a full-time teaching

58
position. Leaders also spoke to the problems they encountered when trying to financially justify
bringing in talented artists, but un-credentialed as teachers, into classroom environments.
Leaders also discussed the cultural barriers they perceived between Eurocentric western art and
the cultural practices of communities of color. They relayed that families associated school
culture as separate from home culture, and did not see the value of bridging the two. The final
theme that leaders experienced was the barrier related to charter qualities. Leaders reflected that
their small-school design limited their course offerings. Those who did not own their buildings
acknowledged the limitations of renting ill-fitting facilities.
Summary
Key findings from this chapter fell into two areas: the philosophy of charter school
leaders in their attempts to prioritize the arts on their school site, and the barriers they
experienced in that pursuit. Leaders generally described a positive opinion of the arts and
discussed the various ways they attempt to increase general arts exposure within their school
model as well as optimizing the student curricular experience. Leaders used the autonomy
afforded to them to obtain student feedback of current offerings, foster a collaborative
environment, and bolster the future arts offerings available to students.
Research question two focused on what leaders felt were impeding the growth of arts
education in their schools. Leaders noted several structural qualities as being particularly
influential barriers, notably the buildings their charter schools occupied and the funding
limitations of smaller schools. Leaders also referred to various cultural barriers in interviews,
such as the school versus home cultures or the liberal arts versus economic culture. The leaders
provided their perspective on how they managed many of these barriers or subsisted despite
these shortcomings. A discussion of key findings and recommendations follows in Chapter Five.

59

60
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This chapter reviews key findings of the study of charter principal's relationship with arts
education. It also identifies the study’s limitations and recommendations for practice. The
chapter closes with recommendations for future inquiry and a concluding summary of the
research.
Arts education has endured a tumultuous journey through the past decades of public
education reform. Changes in K-12 enrollment reflected the shifting demographics of urban
areas, as well as the county as a whole (NCES 2020). The rise of both the accountability era,
ushered in by No Child Left Behind Act, and the charter school movement have left arts
education in a nebulous atmosphere. The structures and barriers of traditional public schools
have been oft examined; however, less research has examined the mechanisms inside charter
schools (Bickmore & Gawlik, 2017; Gross, 2011), and specifically, the increased autonomy
afforded to charter school leaders. As the educational world has rebounded from its
overemphasis on high-stakes testing, the structure of traditional public schools has secured arts
education's place in the educational ecosystem. Yet the stratification of charter schools in
portfolio districts like Los Angeles has left arts education unconsidered if not explicitly included
into a charter school model. The purpose of this study was to examine how principals in
secondary charter schools support the arts as well as the barriers they perceive. The following
research questions were used to guide this study:
1) How do secondary charter school principals in LACOE describe their experience in
deciding how arts education is prioritized at their school site?
2) What do secondary charter school principals in LACOE identify as barriers to offering
an arts-rich education?

61
The study implemented a qualitative design and gathered data using a semi-structured
interview protocol. The use of this style of interview, in this case 14 basic questions with
targeted follow-ups, allowed for flexibility within the interviews to capture the full scope of each
participant's experience (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Principals were recruited to the study
through email communication regardless of their charter school model, and five participants
completed the approximately 45-minute Zoom interviews. None of the charter schools in this
study employed an arts focus charter school model. Interviews were then analyzed for cohesive
themes to determine findings.
Summary of Findings
After analyzing the data from interviews, both research questions were answered. The
study findings revealed that all five charter school leaders hold arts education in high esteem. All
(100%) participants spoke of the importance of arts to a well-rounded education, as well as their
value integrated into all aspects of education. This perspective of inclusion was manifested
through the leaders’ promotion of a collaborative environment. All five leaders sought to
empower student voices, and similarly common, all five leaders looked to utilize teachers'
ancillary expertise. All (100%) of the leaders also displayed an optimism towards successful
future arts offerings. Leaders acknowledged the barriers they faced, both physical and
metaphorical, in these pursuits. Staffing was a universally identified barrier among all
interviewees. All five leaders also described cultural barriers impeding art education at their
school site. Finally, without exception, all of the leaders recognized the qualities of a charter
school (rigidity of resources, infrastructure, recruiting, competing priorities) as a barrier to
providing arts education. Overall, there were six themes that surfaced to answer the study's two
research questions.

62
Prioritizing Arts Education
Research question one asked how charter school principals in LACOE describe their
experience deciding how arts education is prioritized at their school site? The qualitative data
gathered revealed three findings. The first finding that emerged is that principals empowered
student choice within the bounds of their existing model. This finding is consistent with research
that has suggested that charter school principals would be more able to swiftly respond to
formative data using their increased autonomy when compared with traditional public school
leaders (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010; Bickmore & Gawlik, 2017).
Interview responses from principals found that leaders in charter schools used their
autonomy to foster strong relationships with the students they serve. Four of five leaders spoke
of the hands-on methods they employ at their schools. Two participants identified observing and
coaching in the classroom, while two participants separately described dedicated student panels
or feedback mechanisms like an open-door lunch session. Additionally, all five leaders spoke
of gathering student feedback throughout the school year, co-creating units in the preceding
summer, course correcting during instructional periods, and reflecting on content to apply to
future classes.
A second finding to emerge related to question one was leaders championing a culture of
collaboration to include arts. This philosophy of inclusion and collaboration aligned with the
current trends of curricula to incorporate the arts into so-called “STEAM” (science, technology,
engineering, arts, math) learning, which three of five leaders referenced by name. The research
supporting STEAM, and similar movements, emphasized the role that the arts play in fostering
creativity within students, a necessary 21st century skill that has been shown to increase joy and

63
pleasure in a student’s life (Alves‐Oliveira et al., 2022; Conradty & Bogner, 2018; Said-Metwaly
et al., 2018).
Interview responses from leaders found that their collaborative approach extended
through all aspects of the school environment. Five of five leaders gave examples of teachers
delivering cross-curricular units with various arts disciplines. In addition, three of five
participants spoke of encouraging their staff with multiple proficiencies to create arts
opportunities outside of the school day to provide extra-curricular instruction and exposure for
students. Three principals also identified looking to their community for collaborative
partnerships. Principals spoke of their collaborations with working artists, arts organizations, and
community colleges. Two leaders spoke of their robust community college dual enrollment for
students, allowing wider and more in-depth arts educational offerings that doubly provide
college credit. This aligned with the research that has pointed to the autonomy of charter school
leaders to creatively manage resources in the face of regulations and budgetary constraints
(Bickmore & Dowel, 2014; Gawlik, 2008).
The third finding to emerge related to research question one was that school leaders
manifest their support for arts education by focusing on future arts offerings. The experience of
participants in this study echoed the research that has suggested that many charter schools do not
own their infrastructure, some co-located with public schools or forced into ill-fitting spaces
(Kerchner et al., 2008). Yet despite these realities, five of five interview responses from leaders
found that leaders kept an optimistic view toward their future growth and innovation by utilizing
the previously mentioned collaborative culture and student feedback mechanisms.
Charter schools could be considered relatively young in the history of Los Angeles
schools, and few are afforded the opportunity to construct buildings designed with arts education

64
in mind (Kerchner et al., 2008; Marsh et al., 2020). In an effort to recruit students and provide
innovative instruction, charter schools have often adopted an operation model, or school focus
(White & Huang, 2022). Without a model that specifically includes the arts, three of the five of
the schools in this study began their existence without even an arts-specific classroom. Three of
the five participants pointed to active building sites their schools planned to move to in the
coming year, with spaces specifically designed for arts education. The two principals that did not
mention new construction, spoke of the metaphorical bridges that they are constructing within
their community to grow arts education.
Barriers to an Arts-Rich Education
Research question two asked what do charter school principals in LACOE identify as
barriers to offering an arts-rich education? The qualitative data gathered revealed three findings
for this question as well. The first finding that emerged confirmed that school leaders universally
(100%) experience barriers to hiring and allocating arts educators. The bureaucracy of
credentialing as well as funding pathways created difficulties for leaders to navigate. BurianFitzgerald at al. (2004) found that charter school teachers are less likely to have teaching
certification that traditional public school teachers. This study aligned with that research and
further explained that charter school leaders experience hurdles within multiple aspects of the
hiring cycle.
Interview data found that all five participants struggled to find full-time opportunities for
arts educators. All the school leaders admitted their staffing allocations relegated their school to
a single arts discipline, with additional options only available extra-curricular. Two respondents
described not being able to offer full time employment, one participant even gave educators
office work to fulfill full day requirements. Four of the five participants reported they struggled

65
with retaining arts educators due to a variety of factors ranging from school fit to more attractive
opportunities elsewhere. This complimented the research suggesting that all charter schools
struggle with teacher retention (Bickmore & Dowell, 2019; Miron & Applegate, 2007; Stuit &
Smith, 2012).
The second finding to emerge related to research question two was that principals
experienced cultural barriers between families and the school. This finding was consistent with
research suggesting the discordant relationship between the culture of accepted curriculum and
communities experiencing that curriculum. (Bennett & Belfiore, 2008; Gadsden, 2008;
Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013; Milner, 2007). Five of five leaders identified that underserved
communities view their home culture as separate from school culture. It further validated the
research that has suggested artistic culture is traditionally Eurocentric and White, and has
excluded the cultural practices of people of color as worthy examples of art. Three of the five
leaders substantiated the misaligned value that school communities place on traditional arts
education. Participants in interviews confirmed that the communities they serve solicited an
economic return on from schooling and, in response, school leaders aligned their priorities with
the incentives of college and professional structures while advocating for arts inclusion whenever
possible.
The third finding to emerge related to research question two was the qualities that define
a charter school could also prevent leaders from achieving optimal arts education conditions. As
mentioned during previous findings, three of five of the physical locations of their schools
presented a barrier for charter school leaders. This aligned with research that described the suboptimal locations of charter schools in Los Angeles and confirmed research that charter schools
without arts spaces had limited offerings (Elpus, 2022; Kerchner et al., 2008).

66
Qualitative data from interviews confirmed that principals experienced competing
priorities. Three of five principals spoke to the pressure to deliver improved metrics in statetested subjects. This aligned with the research suggesting that charter schools' relative omission
from most oversight measures has placed increased importance in tested subjects (Bickmore &
Dowell, 2014, Gawlik, 2018a). Two leaders reflected that the increased autonomy afforded to
their position often increased the amount tasks they were responsible for, in many cases pushing
arts off the agenda. This finding aligned with research suggesting that charter school leaders
have struggled to lead with additional demands to non-curricular tasks (Bickmore & Dowell,
2014; Gawlik, 2018a; Gawlik, 2018b). The finding also mirrored Wakamatsu's 2016 study
suggesting that administrators acknowledged the value of the arts; but, when faced with conflict,
would not identify it as a top priority.
Limitations and Delimitations
The qualitative nature of this study resulted in fundamental limitations. First, the small
sample size of school locations made the results of the study not generalizable to charter schools
beyond Los Angeles County. Another limitation was my location as a researcher. During data
gathering I did not live in California, where I resided when I began this study, which limited my
ability to recruit potential participants. Lastly, the study was limited by the personal narratives of
school leaders, as the influence of their decision-making process was restricted by their
perception.
The delimitations of this study were the chosen five participants as well as their school
chartered by LACOE. Additional delimitations included choosing secondary school leaders and
conducting a single interview to minimize burden on participants. A final delimitation in this
study was that, in the spirit of qualitative research attempting to capture the experience of

67
individuals in specific context (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017), I chose to refer to arts education
collectively rather than by their individual disciplines in my interview protocol. In follow-up
probes and clarifications, I would cover any subjects the participant may have missed;
nevertheless, this choice may not have captured the full scope of arts support.
Implications for Practice
This study examined the balance between prioritization and barriers of arts education
experiences by charter school leaders. Study findings established themes that inform leaders and
provide information regarding successes and pitfalls to avoid. Specifically, the findings spoke to
three implications that charter school leaders should proactively incorporate into their leadership
practices.
The first implication for charter school leaders’ practice is to proactively include the arts
into their school model. Charter schools that do not explicitly focus on the arts are at risk of
missing large opportunities for co-curricular or arts integrated education. The benefits of arts
education are clear and growing in public acceptance, yet the experiences described in this study
were solely occurring because of the direct support from a school leader. Principals in this study
named numerous examples of methods they use to incorporate arts into their school community
outside of curricular settings, like using staff to run music clubs, bringing in community partners
to lead after-school arts programing. The lone school leader in the study who employed arts
integration methods like unit co-creation with local artists showcased how leaders with an arts
integration vision can actively advocate for inclusion of the arts when it is not an aspect of the
charter model. Leaders need to use their autonomy to include arts education in their model and
create sustainable arts programs that can flourish when a principal is not directly involved.

68
The second implication for charter school leaders’ practice, which builds upon the first
implication, is to embrace arts integration practices into their charter school model. Arts
integration, in some shape or form, has been an aspect of education since the beginnings of
public schooling and there are many examples of the benefits that arts integration can provide for
students (Moss et al., 2018; Root-Bernstein, 2015). School leaders should engage in this research
to investigate the most appropriate methods for arts integration at their school. The Kennedy
Center advocates for schools to know the different ways (arts as curriculum, arts-enhanced
curriculum, or arts integrated curriculum) arts can exist in schools to make the most appropriate
decision (Silverstein & Layne, 2010). Hedgecoth (2018) described a mutually beneficial model
that brought together a local orchestra, a university school of music, and charter schools. Urban
charter schools would be an excellent opportunity to recreate this model given the abundance of
professional music organizations, music colleges, and charter schools.
The last implication for charter school leaders is to acknowledge and break down the
cultural barriers that exist between schools and students/families. The study findings point to
various types of impediments like school and home culture, Eurocentric arts values, and
capitalist culture. Leaders should be actively working to break down those barriers by validating
cultural practices. The arts, viewed as an active form of culture, are an important way to endorse
these practices and create a bond between the school and the community. There is a massive
opportunity to use the platform of charter schools to transform the perception of art and arts
education. Two participants in this study spoke specifically to the inclusion of murals drawn by
local, contemporary artists in the community. This acceptance of a modern, culturally relevant,
art form should be expanded to music and dance, which still struggle to break through the
barriers of European western art traditions.

69
Future Research
As this study's review of literature noted, there is a need for investigations to better
understand decisions that charter school principals make within their school. This study assisted
in providing more context to the processes and factors that contribute to those decisions;
however, further examination is needed. I suggest three areas for additional research to explore
the support and barriers of arts education in charter schools: arts inclusion in various charter
school models, elementary charter school leadership, and schools’ approach to arts within the
same charter management organization,
The first recommendation for future research is to investigate arts education in specific
types of charter school models. Researchers could investigate how the arts function within
charter schools focused on a STEM (science, technology, engineer, and mathematics)
curriculum, since the pedagogical approach would be the same and STEM charters are the most
commonly occurring charter school models (White & Huang, 2022). That research would control
the variable of charter school model, which would allow a further examination of the role that
school leaders have in supporting the arts. This research could also lead to more generalizable
recommendations for arts inclusion in the models that are studied. Additionally, results from this
study indicated that leaders struggled with cultural barriers, and it would be beneficial to see if
students who elect to enroll in specific charter models share cultural values and how leaders
approach that potentially homogeneous environment.
The second recommendation for future research is to broaden the scope of this study by
interviewing and examining the decisions of elementary charter school leaders. A nearly
identical study design and interview protocol could be used to examine this cohort of leaders.
Study findings revealed that leaders struggled with the competing priorities of leading a charter

70
school as well as staffing their secondary charter schools. Elementary schools are free from the
graduation requirements that mandate leaders to offer only state-approved arts courses and hiring
state-certified staff. Research on elementary charter schools would show how leaders
unburdened by regulation might provide arts in nontraditional, and more culturally relevant
systems.
The third recommendation for future research is to control for the autonomy of school
leaders by investigating schools within the same charter management organization. This study’s
findings identified staffing concerns as a barrier to providing an arts-rich education. By studying
schools from a singular charter organization (whether in Los Angeles or in a national charter
management organization), the budget allocations and organizational structure would be
controlled variables. These leaders would still have increased autonomy to make decisions
within their charter school without having to manage staffing or curricular planning. This would
allow future researchers to more accurately analyze the decisions made to support arts education.
Conclusion
As the public education system continues to evolve in the next decades, the arts have an
incredible opportunity to lead the transformation of traditional structures of education. This study
provided evidence that school leaders see the value of arts education, yet still struggle to view
the arts outside of their traditional siloed presentations. The progression of artificial intelligence,
augmented reality, and other advanced technologies gift educational leaders the impetus to
change the focus of how students experience school, and the arts should be at the center of this
new reality. Cloud-based programs now exist that give students an opportunity that did not exist
a decade ago: to access high-quality art with a much lower barrier to entry. Art, at its core, is a
medium of expression and for most of history, those experiences of self-expressing in school

71
were reserved for schools that could afford it. This implicitly told students of color, “your voice
is not valued here”. But through advancing technology, like free music production and digital art
programs, schools can center student voice and expression.
The leaders in this study identified that arts are still viewed as a separate subject from the
rest of the academic school day. Integrated when possible, but often not. It was notable that the
leaders in the study represented wildly different charter school models and had school
populations ten times the size of one another, yet all adopted very similar views on arts
education. But the arts are not siloed, they are ever-present in our lives. They connect us to peers,
family, and our cultural history. The opportunity exists for school leaders to bridge that gap
using the innovation afforded to their position and the existing technology. There are several
sensible and attainable avenues that leaders could pursue. For example, leaders should explore
the California career technical education (CTE) pathways in arts, media, and entertainment,
which have fully written curricula with standards that align to Common Core language arts and
math standards. Those standards could be pulled out and incorporated into curriculum planning.
Schools should also embrace the arts as a valid medium to demonstrate mastery on a subject, as
technology will showcase students’ creativity. Arts focused charter schools and arts magnet
public schools provide numerous opportunities for students interested in furthering their
technical abilities in the arts, but student-center schools still need to explicitly include the arts
into their school as well. Arts should be offered outside the school day in the clubs and extracurriculars many of the leaders in this study described (as they provide a team-like atmosphere
similar to sports), as well as in the school day as mediums of expression, topic exploration, or
adjacent to academic content.

72
This study provided evidence that leaders in charter schools see the value of arts
education and are striving to bring schools into that future. While barriers of funding or school
qualities may persist, leaders should embrace the new funding streams provided by Proposition
28. Only one principal in this study mentioned this dedicated funding source, but it should be
alleviating at least the staffing element of this barrier. Perhaps its absence in interviews indicates
the problem is more about finding qualified teachers, but it will be an important lever to support
arts education in the coming years. In a future with these dedicated funding sources, and a
technological advancement that may eradicate the need for the tasks schools currently value,
school leaders can serve their students best by fostering an environment that teaches students to
think creatively and values their place in the educational system.

73
References
Ableidinger, J., & Hassel, B. C. (2010). Free to lead: Autonomy in highly successful charter
schools. issue brief. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools,
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431-447.
doi:10.1080/09518390902736512
Alemán, X., Duryea, S., Guerra, N. G., McEwan, P. J., Muñoz, R., Stampini, M., & Williamson,
A. A. (2017). The effects of musical training on child development: A randomized trial of el
sistema in venezuela. Prevention Science, 18(7), 865-878. doi:10.1007/s11121-016-0727-3
Alves‐Oliveira, P., Arriaga, P., Xavier, C., Hoffman, G., & Paiva, A. (2022). Creativity
landscapes: Systematic review spanning 70 years of creativity interventions for
children. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(1), 16-40. doi:10.1002/jocb.514
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2021). Art for life's sake: The case for arts education.
Cambridge, Mass: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Anderson, D. R., Sweeney, D. J., & Williams, T. A. (2019). An introduction to management
science: Quantitative approaches to decision making Cengage learning.
Arts and music in Schools—Funding guarantee and accountability act, Retrieved
from https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-education-code/title-1-generaleducation-code-provisions/division-1-general-education-code-provisions/part-6-educationprograms-state-master-plans/chapter-51-arts-work-visual-and-performing-arts-educationprogram

74
Arts Education. (2019). Arts education; "investigating causal effects of arts education
experiences: Experimental evidence from houston's arts access initiative". Education
Week, 38(24), 4. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2193184951
Baer, J. (2017). Content matters: Why nurturing creativity is so different in different
domains. ().Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21924-0_8 Retrieved from ERIC Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED612165
Baker, R. A. (2012). The effects of high-stakes testing policy on arts education. Arts Education
Policy Review, 113(1), 17-25. doi:10.1080/10632913.2012.626384
Bangerter, A., & Heath, C. (2004). The mozart effect: Tracking the evolution of a scientific
legend. British Journal of Social Psychology, 84(4), 605-623. Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/57154852
Bennett, O., & Belfiore, E. (2008). The social impact of the arts (1st ed.). London: Palgrave
Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/9780230227774 Retrieved
from https://www.perlego.com/book/3500392/the-social-impact-of-the-arts-an-intellectualhistory-pdf
Bickmore, D. L., & Gawlik, M. A. (2017). The charter school principal. London: Rowman &
Littlefield. Retrieved from http://www.fachportalpaedagogik.de/fis_bildung/suche/fis_set.html?FId=1128990
Bickmore, D. L., & Sulentic Dowell, M. (2014). Two charter school principals’ engagement in
instructional leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 24(5), 842-881.
doi:10.1177/105268461402400502

75
Blackwood, A., & Purcell, D. (2014). Curating inequality: The link between cultural
reproduction and race in the visual arts. Sociological Inquiry, 84(2), 238-263.
doi:10.1111/soin.12030
Bowen, D. H., & Kisida, B. (2022). Investigating the causal effects of arts education. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 0(0) doi:10.1002/pam.22449
Brown, G. (2016). Leadership's influence: A case study of an elementary principal's indirect
impact on student achievement. Education (Chula Vista), 137(1), 101-115. Retrieved
from https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/prin/ed/2016/00000137/00000001/art00011
Budde, R. (1989). Education by charter. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(7), 518-520.
Buddin, R., & Zimmer, R. (2005). Student achievement in charter schools: A complex
picture. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for
Public Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 351-371.
Burian-Fitzgerald, M., Luekens, M. T., & Strizek, G. A. (2004). Less red tape or more green
teachers: Charter school autonomy and teacher qualifications. In Bulkley & P. Wohlstetter
(Ed.), Taking account of charter schools: What's happened and what's next (pp. 11-31).
New York [u.a.]: Teachers College Press.
Cain, M., Lakhani, A., & Istvandity, L. (2016). Short and long term outcomes for culturally and
linguistically diverse (cald) and at-risk communities in participatory music programs: A
systematic review. Arts & Health, 8(2), 105-124. doi:10.1080/175330 15.2015.102793
Cascio, E. U., & Reber, S. (2013). The poverty gap in school spending following the introduction
of title I. American Economic Review, 103(3), 423-427. doi:10.1257/aer.103.3.423

76
Cascio, E., Gordon, N., Lewis, E., & Reber, S. (2010). Paying for progress: Conditional grants
and the desegregation of southern schools. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1),
445-482. doi:10.1162/qjec.2010.125.1.445
Christine Campbell, Betheny Gross, & Paul T. Hill. (2012). Strife and progress: Portfolio
strategies for managing urban schools (First Edition ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press. Retrieved from http://www.fachportalpaedagogik.de/fis_bildung/suche/fis_set.html?FId=1011298
Chung, H. L., Monday, A., & Perry, A. (2017). Promoting the well-being of urban youth through
drama-based peer education. American Journal of Health Behavior, 41(6), 728-739.
doi:10.5993/AJHB.41.6.7
Coggan, C., Saunders, C., & Grenot, D. (2008). Art and safe communities: The role of big hART
in the regeneration of an inner city housing estate. Health Promotion Journal of
Australia, 19(1), 4-9. doi:10.1071/HE08004
Cohodes, S., & Parham, K. (2021). Charter schools’ effectiveness, mechanisms, and competitive
influence. (). Cambridge, Mass: National Bureau of Economic Research.
doi:10.3386/w28477 Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w28477
Collard, P., & Looney, J. (2014). Nurturing creativity in education. European Journal of
Education, 49(3), 348-364. doi:10.1111/ejed.12090
Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2018). From STEM to STEAM: How to monitor
creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 233-240.
doi:10.1080/10400419.2018.1488195
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design (5th edition, international student
edition ed.). Los Angeles ; London ; New Delhi ; Singapore ; Washington, DC ; Melbourne:

77
SAGE. Retrieved from http://bvbr.bibbvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029
934318&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_typ
e=MEDIA
Daud, A. M., Omar, J., Turiman, P., & Osman, K. (2012). Creativity in science
education. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 467-474.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.302
Delgado, M. (2017). Music, song, dance, and theater (1st ed.). United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from http://digital.casalini.it/9780190642174
Duberg, A., Hagberg, L., Sunvisson, H., & Möller, M. (2013). Influencing self-rated health
among adolescent girls with dance intervention: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA
Pediatrics, 167(1), 27-31. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.421
Dunbar, K. N. (2008). Arts education, the brain, and language. Learning, Arts, and the Brain, ,
81.
Dwyer, M. C. (2011). Reinvesting in arts education: Winning america's future through creative
schools. ().President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities. Retrieved from ERIC
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED522818
Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 380-417.
doi:10.1037/h0053870
Elpus, K. (2022). Access to arts education in america: The availability of visual art, music,
dance, and theater courses in U.S. high schools. Arts Education Policy Review, 123(2), 50-
69. doi:10.1080/10632913.2020.1773365

78
Erickson, H. H., Watson, A. R., & Greene, J. P. (2024). An experimental evaluation of culturally
enriching field trips. The Journal of Human Resources, 59(3), 879-904.
doi:10.3368/jhr.1020-11242R1
Fancourt, D. (2017). Arts in health : Designing and researching interventions (1st ed.). Oxford:
OUP Oxford. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198792079.001.0001 Retrieved
from https://library.biblioboard.com/viewer/32ddd478-fff6-48e6-8fbb-91b7be19037c
Fancourt, D., & Finn, S. (2019). What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health
and well-being? A scoping review World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe.
Fernandez, S. (2018). Music and brain development. Pediatric Annals, 47(8), 306.
doi:10.3928/19382359-20180710-01
Findlay, N. M. (2015). Discretion in student discipline. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 51(3), 472-507. doi:10.1177/0013161X14523617
Finn, C. E., Bierlein, L. A., & Manno, B. V. (1996). Charter schools in action: A first
look Hudson Institute.
Gadsden, V. L. (2008). The arts and education: Knowledge generation, pedagogy, and the
discourse of learning. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 29-61.
doi:10.3102/0091732X07309691
Gaser, C., & Schlaug, G. (2003). Brain structures differ between musicians and nonmusicians. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23(27), 9240-9245. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.23-27-
09240.2003
Gawlik, M. A. (2008). Breaking loose. Educational Policy (Los Altos, Calif.), 22(6), 783-804.
doi:10.1177/0895904807307058

79
Gawlik, M. A. (2018a). Instructional leadership and the charter school principal. School
Leadership & Management, 38(5), 539-565. doi:10.1080/13632434.2018.1439467
Gawlik, M. A. (2018b). Leadership knowledge and practices in the context of charter
schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(4), 422-453.
doi:10.1080/15700763.2017.1326145
Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Why the arts don't do anything: Toward a new vision for
cultural production in education. Harvard Educational Review, 83(1), 211-237.
doi:10.17763/haer.83.1.a78q39699078ju20
Gerry, D., Unrau, A., & Trainor, L. J. (2012). Active music classes in infancy enhance musical,
communicative and social development. Developmental Science, 15(3), 398-407.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01142.x
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers (4. ed., internat. ed. ed.). Boston [u.a.]:
Pearson. Retrieved from http://bvbr.bibbvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020
503130&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_typ
e=MEDIA
Gross, B. (2011). Inside charter schools: Unlocking doors to student success. ().University of
Washington.
Grossi, E., Tavano Blessi, G., & Sacco, P. L. (2019). Magic moments: Determinants of stress
relief and subjective wellbeing from visiting a cultural heritage site. Culture, Medicine and
Psychiatry, 43(1), 4-24. doi:10.1007/s11013-018-9593-8

80
Groussard, M., Viader, F., Landeau, B., Desgranges, B., Eustache, F., & Platel, H. (2014). The
effects of musical practice on structural plasticity: The dynamics of grey matter
changes. Brain and Cognition, 90, 174-180. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2014.06.013
Habibi, A., Damasio, A., Ilari, B., Veiga, R., Joshi, A. A., Leahy, R. M., . . . Damasio, H. (2018).
Childhood music training induces change in micro and macroscopic brain structure: Results
from a longitudinal study. Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y. 1991), 28(12), 4336-4347.
doi:10.1093/cercor/bhx286
Hallam, S., & Rogers, K. (2016). The impact of instrumental music learning on attainment at age
16: A pilot study. British Journal of Music Education, 33(3), 247-261.
doi:10.1017/S0265051716000371
Hedgecoth, D. M. (2018). Collaborations: Partnerships create success for charter school
students. Music Educators Journal, 105(2), 51–56. doi:10.1177/0027432118804868
Heath, S. B. (2001). Three’s not a crowd: Plans, roles, and focus in the arts. Educational
Researcher, 30(7), 10-17. doi:10.3102/0013189X030007010
Herholz, S., & Zatorre, R. (2012). Musical training as a framework for brain plasticity: Behavior,
function, and structure. neuron. Neuron, 76(3), 486-502. Retrieved
from https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.011
Higueras-Fresnillo, S., Martínez-Gómez, D., Padilla-Moledo, C., Conde-Caveda, J., & EstebanCornejo, I. (2016). Dance participation and academic performance in youth girls. Nutrición
Hospitalaria : Organo Oficial De La Sociedad Española De Nutrición Parenteral Y
Enteral, 33(3), 288. doi:10.20960/NH.288

81
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2010). Swift and smart decision making: Heuristics that
work. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(4), 351-358.
doi:10.1108/09513541011045272
Huang, L., & White, J. (2023). Exploring charter school innovation: A comparison of popular
charter school models. Journal of School Choice, 17(3), 387–403.
doi:10.1080/15582159.2023.2233321
Huotilainen, M., & Tervaniemi, M. (2018). Planning music‐based amelioration and training in
infancy and childhood based on neural evidence. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 1423(1), 146-154. doi:10.1111/nyas.13655
Jackson, C. K. (2018). What do test scores miss? Journal of Political Economy, 126(5), 2072-
2107. doi:10.1086/699018
Jackson, C. K., Porter, S. C., Easton, J. Q., Blanchard, A., & Kiguel, S. (2020). School effects on
socioemotional development, school-based arrests, and educational attainment. The
American Economic Review. Insights, 2(4), 491-508. doi:10.1257/aeri.20200029
Jackson, M., Bass, L., Jackman-Ryan, S., Hoeflaken, K., & Picart, J. A. (2022). Locating equity
in principals' pandemic decision-making practices. Peabody Journal of Education, 97(3),
274-290. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2022.2079883
Johnson, B. L., & Kruse, S. D. (2009). Decision making for educational leaders (1st ed.).
Albany: State Univ. of New York Press. Retrieved from http://www.fachportalpaedagogik.de/fis_bildung/suche/fis_set.html?FId=910907
Kalliopuska, M. (1989). Empathy, self-esteem and creativity among junior ballet
dancers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69(3-2), 1227-1234. doi:10.1177/00315125890693-
230

82
Kandel, E. R. (2016). Reductionism in art and brain science (1st ed.). New York: Columbia
University Press. doi:10.7312/kand17962 Retrieved
from http://portal.igpublish.com/iglibrary/search/COLB0002288.html
Kaufman, J. (2018). Creativity as a stepping stone toward a brighter future. Journal of
Intelligence, 6(2), 21. doi:10.3390/jintelligence6020021
Kerchner, C. T., Menefee-Libey, D. J., Mulfinger, L. S., & Clayton, S. E. (2008). Learning from
L.A.: Institutional change in american public education Harvard Education Press. Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED525760
Kim, B., & Kim, J. (2016). Development and validation of evaluation indicators for teaching
competency in STEAM education in korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 12(7), 1909. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1537a
Kim, J. (2017). Effects of community-based group music therapy for children exposed to
ongoing child maltreatment & poverty in south korea: A block randomized controlled
trial. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 54, 69-77. doi:10.1016/j.aip.2017.01.001
Kim, Y., & Park, N. (2012). Development and application of STEAM teaching model based on
the rube goldberg’s invention. Computer science and its applications (pp. 693-698).
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5699-1_70 Retrieved
from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-007-5699-1_70
Koza, J. E. (2010). Listening for whiteness: Hearing racial politics in undergraduate school
music. Music Education for Changing Times: Guiding Visions for Practice, , 85-95.
Kraehe, A. M. (2014). Toward a multidimensional framework for educational
equity. (Manuscript Submitted for Publication), Retrieved
from http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2012/08/almost-published.html.

83
Kraehe, A. M., Acuff, J. B., & Travis, S. (2016). Equity, the arts, and urban education: A
review. The Urban Review, 48(2), 220-244. doi:10.1007/s11256-016-0352-2
Los Angeles County Office of Education, (LACOE). (2023). LACOE by the numbers. Retrieved
from http://lacoe.edu
Lacoe, J., Painter, G. D., & Williams, D. (2020). Museums as classrooms: The academic and
behavioral impacts of “School in the park”. AERA Open, 6(3), 233285842094030.
doi:10.1177/2332858420940309
Linnemann, A., Strahler, J., & Nater, U. M. (2016). The stress-reducing effect of music listening
varies depending on the social context. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 72, 97-105.
doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2016.06.003
Linnemann, A., Wenzel, M., Grammes, J., Kubiak, T., & Nater, U. M. (2018). Music listening
and stress in daily life—a matter of timing. International Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 25(2), 223-230. doi:10.1007/s12529-017-9697-5
Lochmiller, C., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research. Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications, Incorporated. Retrieved
from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/[SITE_ID]/detail.action?docID=7106985
Magsamen, S. (2019). Your brain on art: The case for neuroaesthetics. Cerebrum (New York,
NY), 2019 Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32206171
Major, M. L. (2013). How they decide: A case study examining the decision-making process for
keeping or cutting music in a K–12 public school district. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 61(1), 5-25. doi:10.1177/0022429412474313
March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen Simon and Schuster.

84
Marsh, J. A., Allbright, T. N., Brown, D. R., Bulkley, K. E., Strunk, K. O., & Harris, D. N.
(2021). The process and politics of educational governance change in new orleans, los
angeles, and denver. American Educational Research Journal, 58(1), 107-159.
doi:10.3102/0002831220921475
Marsh, J. A., Allbright, T. N., Bulkley, K. E., Kennedy, K. E., & Dhaliwal, T. K. (2020).
Institutional logics in los angeles schools: Do multiple models disrupt the grammar of
schooling? American Journal of Education, 126(4), 603-651. doi:10.1086/709516
Martin, L., Oepen, R., Bauer, K., Nottensteiner, A., Mergheim, K., Gruber, H., & Koch, S. C.
(2018). Creative arts interventions for stress management and Prevention—A systematic
review. Behavioral Sciences, 8(2), 28. doi:10.3390/bs8020028
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design (3. edition ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
McCarthy, K. F., Ondaatje, E. H., Zakaras, L., & Brooks, A. (2004). Gifts of the muse :
Reframing the debate about the benefits of the arts : Pbk RAND.
Mehr, S. A., Schachner, A., Katz, R. C., & Spelke, E. S. (2013). Two randomized trials provide
no consistent evidence for nonmusical cognitive benefits of brief preschool music
enrichment. PloS One, 8(12), e82007. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082007
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research (Fourth edition ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen,
unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388-400.
doi:10.3102/0013189X07309471
Miron, G., & Applegate, B. (2007). Teacher attrition in charter schools. East Lansing, MI: Great
Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, 40

85
Moss, T. E., Benus, M. J., & Tucker, E. A. (2018). Impacting urban students’ academic
achievement and executive function through school-based arts integration programs. SAGE
Open, 8(2), 215824401877313. doi:10.1177/2158244018773131
Nalbantian, S. (2019). The twists and turns of creativity. Secrets of
Creativity, doi:10.1093/oso/9780190462321.003.0001
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Public charter school enrollment. (). Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgb
New York City Department of Education. (2023). Annual arts in schools report 2022-2023. ().
Retrieved from https://saintrafileprod01.blob.core.windows.net/prd-intra/docs/defaultsource/reports/office_of_the_arts_2023_annual_report_text_r7_web.pdf
Oosterhuis, R. (2012). Doing well and doing good by doing art: A 12-year national study of
education in the visual and performing arts Routledge. doi:10.1080/09548963.2012.741353
Ozernov-Palchik, O., Wolf, M., & Patel, A. D. (2018). Relationships between early literacy and
nonlinguistic rhythmic processes in kindergarteners. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 167, 354-368. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2017.11.009
Panteleeva, Y., Ceschi, G., Glowinski, D., Courvoisier, D. S., & Grandjean, D. (2018). Music for
anxiety? meta-analysis of anxiety reduction in non-clinical samples. Psychology of
Music, 46(4), 473-487. doi:10.1177/0305735617712424
Pantev, C., & Herholz, S. C. (2011). Plasticity of the human auditory cortex related to musical
training. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(10), 2140-2154.
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.06.010
Park, S., Lee, J., Baik, Y., Kim, K., Yun, H. J., Kwon, H., . . . Kim, B. (2015). A preliminary
study of the effects of an arts education program on executive function, behavior, and brain

86
structure in a sample of nonclinical school-aged children. Journal of Child
Neurology, 30(13), 1757-1766. doi:10.1177/0883073815579710
Parkinson, C., & White, M. (2013). Inequalities, the arts and public health: Towards an
international conversation. Arts & Health, 5(3), 177-189.
doi:10.1080/17533015.2013.826260
Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary
schools: 1999-2000 and 2009-10. NCES 2012-014. National Center for Education
Statistics,
Pearce, M. T., Zaidel, D. W., Vartanian, O., Skov, M., Leder, H., Chatterjee, A., & Nadal, M.
(2016). Neuroaesthetics: The cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 11(2), 265-279. doi:10.1177/1745691615621274
Petitto, L. (2008). Arts education, the brain, and language. Learning, Arts and the Brain.the
Dana Consortium Report on Arts and Cognition, , 93-104.
Polinsky, N., Perez, J., Grehl, M., & McCrink, K. (2017). Encouraging spatial talk: Using
children's museums to bolster spatial reasoning. Mind, Brain and Education, 11(3), 144-152.
doi:10.1111/mbe.12145
Rabkin, N., & Hedberg, E. (2011). Arts education in america: What the declines mean for arts
participation. ().Unknown. doi:10.6082/uchicago.1271 Retrieved
from https://search.datacite.org/works/10.6082/uchicago.1271
Ribeiro, F. S., & Santos, F. H. (2017). Enhancement of numeric cognition in children with low
achievement in mathematic after a non-instrumental musical training. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 62, 26-39. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.11.008
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2012). Organizational behavior 15th edition Prentice Hall.

87
Robinson, K. (2017). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative (3rd edition. ed.) Capstone.
Retrieved
from https://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=none&isbn=978085708755
3&uid=none
Root-Bernstein, R. (2015). Arts and crafts as adjuncts to STEM education to foster creativity in
gifted and talented students. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16, 203–212.
Ruppert, S. S., & Nelson, A. L. (2006). From anecdote to evidence: Assessing the status and
condition of arts education at the state level. AEP research and policy brief. Arts Education
Partnership (NJ1),
Said-Metwaly, S., Fernández-Castilla, B., Kyndt, E., & Van den Noortgate, W. (2018). The
factor structure of the figural torrance tests of creative thinking: A meta-confirmatory factor
analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 30(4), 352-360.
doi:10.1080/10400419.2018.1530534
Schlaug, G., Norton, A., Overy, K., & Winner, E. (2005). Effects of music training on the child's
brain and cognitive development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060(1),
219-230. doi:10.1196/annals.1360.015
Selfhout, M. H. W., Branje, S. J. T., ter Bogt, T. F. M., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009). The role of
music preferences in early adolescents’ friendship formation and stability. Journal of
Adolescence, 32(1), 95-107. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.11.004
Silverstein, L. B., & Layne, S. (2010). What is arts integration. Washington, DC: The Kennedy
Center for the Performing Arts,

88
Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2019). Exploring systems thinking in school principals' decisionmaking. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 22(5), 573-596.
doi:10.1080/13603124.2018.1481533
Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies (Third edition ed.). London ; New York ;
Dublin: Zed Books. Retrieved from http://bvbr.bibbvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=032
575837&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_typ
e=MEDIA
Spiegel, J. B., & Parent, S. N. (2018). Re-approaching community development through the arts:
A 'critical mixed methods' study of social circus in quebec. Community Development
Journal, 53(4), 600-617. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsx015
Spillane, J. P., & Kenney, A. W. (2012). School administration in a changing education sector:
The US experience. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 541-561.
doi:10.1108/09578231211249817
Stein, M. K., Nelson, B. S., Otten, S., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Carver, C. L. (2003).
Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423-
448. doi:10.3102/01623737025004423
Stuit, D. A., & Smith, T. M. (2012). Explaining the gap in charter and traditional public school
teacher turnover rates. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 268–279.
Sylvain Moreno, Carlos Marques, Andreia Santos, Manuela Santos, São Luís Castro, & Mireille
Besson. (2009). Musical training influences linguistic abilities in 8-year-old children: More
evidence for brain plasticity. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn120

89
Thomas, M. K., Singh, P., Klopfenstein, K., & Henry, T. C. (2013). Access to high school arts
education: Why student participation matters as much as course availability. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 21, 83. doi:10.14507/epaa.v21n83.2013
Tsethlikai, M. (2011). An exploratory analysis of american indian children's cultural
engagement, fluid cognitive skills, and standardized verbal IQ scores. Developmental
Psychology, 47(1), 192-202. doi:10.1037/a0020803
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). No child left behind: A parents guide. Washington, DC:
U.S. Dept. of Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Supporting school reform by leveraging federal funds in
a schoolwide program. (). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools,
by region, state, and jurisdiction: Selected years, fall 1990 through fall 2029 . ().
Von Hilgers, P. (2011). The history of the black box: The clash of a thing and its
concept. Cultural Politics (Biggleswade, England), 7(1), 41–58.
doi:10.2752/175174311X12861940861707
Wakamatsu, K. (2016). Teacher evaluation and principal perception: How arts integration may
be key to elevating dance. Arts Education Policy Review, 117(4), 203-210.
doi:10.1080/10632913.2016.1211924
Wells, A. S., Grutzik, C., Carnochan, S., Slayton, J., & Vasudeva, A. (1999). Underlying policy
assumptions of charter school reform: The multiple meanings of a movement. Teachers
College Record (1970), 100(3), 513-535. doi:10.1111/0161-4681.00002
White, J., & Huang, L. (2022). A census of all specialized charter school foci and
models. Journal of School Choice, 16(1), 11–42. doi:10.1080/15582159.2021.1995692

90
Winner, E., & Cooper, M. (2000). Mute those claims: No evidence (yet) for a causal link
between arts study and academic achievement. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4),
11-75. doi:10.2307/3333637
Yang, P. (2015). The impact of music on educational attainment. Journal of Cultural
Economics, 39(4), 369-396. doi:10.1007/s10824-015-9240-y
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations, 9/e Pearson Education India.
Yun, Y., & Kim, J. (2013). The effects of the orff approach on self-expression, self-efficacy, and
social skills of children in low-income families in south korea. Child Welfare, 92(4), 123-
158. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/48623406
Zimmer, R., & Buddin, R. (2007). Getting inside the black box: Examining how the operation of
charter schools affects performance. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2-3), 231-273.
doi:10.1080/01619560701312954
Zimmer, R., Buddin, R., Smith, S. A., & Duffy-Chipman, D. (2019). Nearly three decades into
the charter school movement, what has research told us about charter schools? The
routledge handbook of the economics of education (pp. 73-106) Routledge.

91
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Introduction:
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. I appreciate you finding time for our
conversation. As I mentioned in my previous communication, this interview should take about an
hour, does that still work for you?
Before we get started, I want to reiterate some of the details from my Study Information and
answer any questions you might have about the interview. I am a student at USC and am
conducting a study on leaders’ role in the process of arts education at their school site.
Specifically, I am interested in the perspective of Charter School Leaders, and so I am limiting
the study to secondary charter schools for their perspective.
I want to assure you that I am a researcher, not interested in making any judgements on your
interactions with arts education, I am here to learn how the process unfolds at your school.
A reminder that this interview is confidential. Your name will not be shared with anyone, and I
will be using a pseudonym (to protect confidentiality) if there is a direct quotation I need to make
in the dissertation. I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are
interested. As per USC’s IRB, all the data I collect will be in a password protected computer and
will be expunged after three years.
Do you have any questions about the study before we begin?
Fantastic, and finally, is it alright if I record this zoom? Again, the recording will not be shared
with anyone, but will help me to capture your thoughts completely.
Setting the Stage: I’d like to start by asking some questions about you:
1) What is your role at the school?
a) How long have you held that role?
b) Are there other roles/positions that you held at this school-site?

92
2) What are your responsibilities?
a) What teams do you lead?
3) Please describe your personal experience with arts education, if any.
a) Possible follow up with the other disciplines if the subject is vague.
Heart of the Interview: I’d like to continue now by asking about your role in supporting arts
education.
4) Suppose you are introducing your arts offerings to an incoming 9th grade student, how would
you describe offerings of your school?
a) Follow up on specifics given, discover subjects, and depth.
5) Next, I would like to ask you to chronicle out the journey this/these programs have been
through in your time at the school. Can you walk me through that?
a) Follow up on specifics: staffing, budget, decision-making.
6) How would you describe your experience evaluating the Arts programs at your schools?
7) How would you describe the ways, if any, that you’ve fostered the growth of the program(s)
through your role?
8) Suppose that (insert name of a teacher named) quit next year, what would happen to the
program?
a) Would you consider changing disciplines?
9) How do budgeting calculations affect your ability to support the arts?
a) How much wiggle-room do you have?
10) What are barriers you perceive in providing a(n) (more) arts-rich culture at the school?
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about how the arts are supported by other entities.

93
11) What are the supports, if any, that you receive from your Charter Group for arts education at
your school site?
12) Guide me through how your school site council gives input into arts education?
13) How do your extra-curricular arts programs (if any) support the school?
Closing Question:
14) Imagine all the barriers were removed (based on previous answers,
budget/space/faculty/etc.), paint me a picture of what your arts education program would
look like.
Closing Comments:
Thank you so much for sharing your time and thoughts with me today. I’ll reach out through an
email if I have any follow-ups. Be on the lookout for a small token of my appreciation, is
Starbucks ok? Thank you again for participating in my study!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The growth in diversity and accountability legislation have dramatically altered the urban educational landscape the past fifty years. The focus on standardized testing coupled with the decline in school-facilitated arts education exposure and the proliferation of charter schools have led to less arts education courses offered in secondary urban charter schools. There is gap of investigation of how leaders support the arts; particularly charter school principals who have an outsized role in school operations. This qualitative study examined how principals in secondary charter schools prioritize the arts (RQ1) and explored barriers leaders perceive in that pursuit (RQ2) using semi-structured interviews. The study provided insights into the effect that school leaders have on the arts within their school site, with consideration for the circumstantial limitations or barriers. Evidence suggested that school leaders support the arts in myriad ways including soliciting student feedback, fostering a collaborative environment, and projecting expansive future offerings. Barriers were staffing, cultural barriers, and inherent charter school qualities. Implications for practice to foster supports and mitigation of barriers include intentional support of arts education, inclusion of arts-integration practices, and proactively breaking down cultural barriers.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Leadership matters: the role of urban school principals as transformational leaders in influencing parent engagement to disrupt educational inequities

PDF

What can districts do to retain high school assistant principals?

PDF

“Going up the river”: the consequence of response & the assumptions that underlie, support, and justify the practices of educational leaders for chronically absent youth

PDF

Stories of persistence: illuminating the experiences of California Latina K–12 leaders: a retention and career development model

PDF

Fostering leadership resilience: examining the influence of social networks on female administrators’ capacity to lead in times of crisis or organizational change

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary school principals

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievements: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

Beginning teachers’ perceptions of induction program support

PDF

Charter school leadership

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary principals

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievement: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

Response to the growth of charter schools in California school districts: an evaluation study

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

Are students better off? An analysis of administrators’ commitment to serving transitional kindergarten students in multilingually diverse communities in Central Coast California

PDF

The lack of Black women in higher education executive leadership in four-year colleges and universities

PDF

What can districts do to retain their high school principals?

PDF

A study of the leadership strategies of urban elementary school principals with effective inclusion programs for autistic students in the general education setting for a majority of the school day

PDF

Structures for change: involving faculty in equity-based decision-making in independent schools

PDF

A qualitative examination of PBIS team members' perceptions of urban high school teachers' role in implementing tier 2 schoolwide positive behavior supports

Asset Metadata

Creator O'Connor, Brian (author)

Core Title The art of leadership: investigating the decision-making process of how charter school leaders utilize the arts

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 09/27/2024

Defense Date 09/12/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag arts education,charter schools,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Crew, Rudolph (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email briano00@usc.edu,oconnor.brian.r@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11399BCU2

Unique identifier UC11399BCU2

Identifier etd-OConnorBri-13555.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-OConnorBri-13555

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights O'Connor, Brian

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20241001-usctheses-batch-1215 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu