Education for Community Engagement
Advancing the Preparation of Professional Musicians through
Systematic Education for Community Engagement
David E. Myers
School of Music
Center for Educational Partnerships in Music
Georgia State University
Atlanta GA 30303
dmyers@gsu.edu
© David E. Myers
(May be cited, duplicated, or disseminated only by permission of the author)
1
Education for Community Engagement
2
Abstract
American career musicians frequently fault managers for public apathy when local arts
institutions face fiscal crises. Yet, according to recent studies, positive symbiosis
between arts organizations and their communities is more a function of the intrinsic
values of the arts than of managers’ advocacy for economic impact and arts philanthropy.
Such an assertion calls into question an historic assumption among musicians that staged
performance is the extent of their relationship with the public. Instead, it suggests that
musicians may need to be more proactive in building and sustaining audiences for their
work. Moving from a passive to an active stance, which is characterized by musicians
who not only accept responsibility for engaging the public but who also embrace the task
of creative interaction with the community, challenges many existing practices in tertiary
music schools. This paper presents an argument and a model for integrating knowledge
and skills for community engagement into the professional preparation of performers and
composers. In contrast to elective studies or short-term community service projects,
training and guided internships can encourage lifelong professional dispositions and
capacities to underlie sustained support for classical music. The paper provides
principles for integrating related pedagogy and practice into the curriculum without
sacrificing artistic rigor. Based on work being done in the Center for Educational
Partnerships in Music at Georgia State University, the paper uses data from student
interviews to derive emergent themes in the education of university music majors for
community engagement.
Education for Community Engagement
3
Advancing the Preparation of Professional Musicians through
Systematic Education for Community Engagement
Background
According to three recent reports by the RAND corporation (2001; 2001; 2004),
there is a need for American artists to increase their levels of direct engagement with a
wide spectrum of current and prospective arts participants. The RAND analyses assert
that the goal of broader (more people) and deeper participation in the arts is largely a
function of two things: a) helping people see the relevance of the arts to daily life; and b)
making arts experiences as personally and socially enriching as possible. In contrast to
widespread supply-side strategies based on developing audiences through increased
marketing of the arts’ instrumental values, the RAND reports urge a cultivation of
demand by engaging the public personally and actively in the arts. Citing the weak
methodology and findings of popular studies promoting the arts’ extrinsic benefits -cognitive, social, and economic -- the authors emphasize intrinsic values associated with
direct participation and artistic worth, as well as the importance of economic and
logistical access. They see relationships between practicing artists and lay participants as
key in enlarging public demand in this way.
The RAND recommendations are bolstered by evidence that arts participation
rates among Americans have remained static since 1982 (National Endowment for the
Arts, 2002), a period during which many arts advocates have promoted extrinsic benefits
as a key to community engagement and support. Over the past 20 years, Americans’ 12month rate of attendance at classical music events has been steady at only 11-12 percent
of the population. About 10-11 percent attend a jazz event within any given year, and
Education for Community Engagement
4
about three percent attend an opera. Among those surveyed, 4.8 percent reported that
they performed or created music at least once in the previous year, and 2.8 percent said
they had composed music. Those with more education and higher incomes were more
likely to attend arts events; however, when reporting on actually “doing” the arts,
correlations with education level and income were somewhat weaker.
The Challenge of Engaging Communities of Arts Participants
Predating the RAND reports, many American classical music institutions had
implemented strategies to overcome traditional barriers between artists and audiences,
and to reach out new populations, particularly school children. From the 1960s,
government and philanthropic initiatives placed artists in schools to enhance and enrich
sequential curricula, and many organizations, including Young Audiences, opera
companies, and symphony orchestras began sending musicians into schools for assemblystyle programs and performances. With the demise of curricular music programs in many
urban schools during the 1970s and a new wave of school reform in the 1980s, resident
artists sometimes became the primary deliverers of music education. Arts organizations
increasingly began to think in terms of ongoing sequential instruction combined with
small-ensemble performances and young people’s concerts as a package of educational
offerings.
In the 1980s, Americans’ collective consciousness regarding the poor quality of
many public schools spurred public-private partnerships as an avenue for school reform.
In the arts, these programs were inspired by a combination of funders’ demands and arts
organizations’ concern over future audiences, which tended to make arts advocacy a
Education for Community Engagement
5
priority over research-based instructional programs. Most were loosely formulated on the
idea that music’s value lay in its extrinsic, and often superficially described, contributions
to children’s cognitive development and academic achievement, an argument that had
become popular for convincing school administrators that music deserved a place in the
curriculum. Ironically, such programs often advanced the idea that professionally trained
musicians could become de facto teachers of virtually any subject simply by adding
music to it, and that no systematic professional training was necessary for such work.
As a result, both the musical and the educational worth were frequently negligible.
Over time, both thinking and practice in this area have matured considerably. The
most forward-thinking leaders have recognized that arts organizations and practicing
artists can supplement and enrich ongoing instruction in schools but are not generally
equipped to be the primary continuing providers of either music or academic instruction.
Performers and composers often work collaboratively with certificated music specialists
and classroom teachers, and they are expected to be a part of both planning and reflection
regarding the quality and effectiveness of their work. In addition, arts organizations have
begun to couple their interests in supporting school programs with a broader commitment
to community service, which generally involves advancing a wide range of interactions
between practicing musicians and increasingly diverse segments of the community. In
some regional orchestras in the United States, musicians are now required to work in
schools and communities as part of their contractual agreements. In larger orchestras,
incentives for community engagement are offered through the exchange of such work for
standard performance services.
Education for Community Engagement
6
As the field of community engagement has evolved, awareness has grown
regarding the requisite knowledge and skills necessary for musicians to undertake
effective practice. However, systematic training via pre-service education and
professional development continues to be a difficult challenge. With regard to work in
schools, greater clarity and focus around the roles of performers and composers as
collaborators with music specialists and classroom teachers can provide a basis for
relevant training. With regard to less formal community settings, musicians should be
prepared to adapt music-making, creating, and listening strategies for participants
representing diverse age groups, musical backgrounds, and levels of interest.
Issues for Music Schools
The extent to which performing musicians traditionally view their work as
entirely separate from community engagement was highlighted during a recent
symposium. Two musicians were describing their institution’s dilemma of trying to
improve salaries during a period of revenue declines. The musicians’ position was that
ensuring positive community perceptions and rallying financial support for the orchestra
were functions of management in which musicians had no accountability beyond
performance. In return for playing, they felt they deserved to be appreciated by the
community, and to be paid well for their efforts.
Management does, of course, carry an essential responsibility for institutional
survival and solvency. Nevertheless, these musicians’ assumptions reveal a crucial
impediment in the long history of frustrated efforts to engender a sustainable culture for
the arts in American society: an ethos among many professional musicians that includes a
Education for Community Engagement
7
desire for public appreciation and support, but that does not extend to accountability for
advancing the intrinsic benefits of music through direct, meaningful interaction between
musicians and a broad range of participants.
Historically, music schools and conservatories have tended to replicate this
musician-audience distance typical of the performance world and to induct students into a
professional culture of entitlement rather than public service. Students are encouraged to
hone their individual craft, often to the exclusion of a more broadly based education or a
social existence beyond their immediate circle of performing peers, thus focusing
increasingly on the perfectionism of performance. Although the vast majority of
professional musicians earn at least a portion of their living by teaching, teaching is often
a secondary choice after performance. Teaching may be perceived as an extension of
performance practice rather than a discipline with its own body of knowledge, and
students who identify teaching as a professional goal may be considered lesser musicians.
The curricular context that nurtures these perspectives is not likely to
accommodate easily suggestions that students should be equipped with knowledge and
skills for community engagement. As in all curricular decisions, questions immediately
arise as to what will be compromised. In the case of music, there is legitimate concern
that artistry not be sacrificed in the interest of developing communicative or educative
abilities.
Yet, as indicated by both the RAND and NEA reports, the perpetuation of current
beliefs, values, and curricula regarding professional musicians is not yielding a growth in
public demand or public participation for the arts. Only within the past decade have
American music schools begun to reflect seriously on the real-world implications and
Education for Community Engagement
8
applications of the training they provide their students, particularly in performance and
composition. Even now, it is not clear that American music schools have confronted
their responsibility to adapt to the changing professional expectations of career musicians
or to prepare musicians who can provide leadership in increasing creative public
engagement in music.
Historically “real world” for music institutions meant a kind of do-or-die
initiation of students into the competitive arena of performance in which some achieved
stardom, some achieved stable incomes through combinations of performance and
teaching, and others worked at non-music jobs with music as a supplementary source of
income. In progressive schools, “real world” has more recently come to mean the
broadening of knowledge and skills so that musicians can effectively relate with the
public and help to foster the kind of public demand suggested by the RAND reports. The
range of strengthened content may include pedagogy, business, technology, leadership,
improvisation and composition, interchange with practicing professionals, and guided
internships that bridge conservatory training with employment opportunities
Within the focus of this paper, two particular areas of curricular innovation in
higher education are suggested to enhance the public engagement work of musicians:
1) preparation for students across all music disciplines to engage diverse audiences in
high-quality musical experience and learning; and 2) preparation to collaborate with other
professionals in building seamless cultures for lifelong musical growth in schools and
communities.
Education for Community Engagement
9
The Sound Learning/Music-in-Education Program
Sound Learning/Music-in-Education is a two-pronged effort within the Center for
Educational Partnerships in Music at Georgia State University to engage university
students with professional musicians and educators in an implemented universitycommunity collaboration. Sound Learning refers to the institutional partnership among
the university, professional musicians, and local schools. Music-in-Education (MIE)
refers to the curricular preparation of university students for community engagement
through seminars and situated experiences within the Sound Learning (SL) partnership.
SL and MIE are not viewed as “outreach” efforts of the university. Rather, they are
viewed as two dimensions of the university’s local leadership in developing sustainable
music-learning cultures in schools.
SL is founded on the premise that the collaborative expertise and resources of a
network of committed institutions and individuals is necessary to develop sustained
music-learning cultures in schools and communities. Within school settings, music
teachers frequently function in isolated capacities, and they have neither the time nor the
political influence to generate school-wide music-learning cultures. Classroom teachers,
despite a belief in the value of music, are poorly equipped to engage students in worthy
musical experience that provides a basis for authentic curricular integration. In the
Atlanta partnership, the university offers the expertise of faculty and a research
perspective on high-quality teaching both in and through music. In addition, the
university brings expertise and research in the area of school-community collaboration,
particularly in the area of collaboration among practicing artists and educators.
Community musicians offer a direct link between music in the school and music in the
Education for Community Engagement
10
community, providing children the opportunity to participate directly in authentic realworld music-making, to know career artists personally, and to develop a comfort with
music beyond the school that they otherwise would be unlikely to develop. It is into this
operational collaborative context that university students are inducted through the MIE
program.
SL has relationships with seven elementary schools in which composers,
performers, music educators, and classroom teachers work collaboratively to support
sequential curricula in both music and academic subjects. Four interactive, learningbased musician visits occur during the school year for every class of students, and each
visit is carefully planned to coincide with goals and objectives established at the
beginning of the year. Musicians build on materials, skills, and concepts already
underway in classrooms, enriching them with additional repertoire and rich musical
interactions. Professional development is both episodic (scheduled large-group sessions)
and embedded (reflective sessions, email correspondence, and other direct
communications). Advanced practice music educators serve as site coordinators to
ensure musical and educational integrity and foster collaboration in classrooms.
As the training piece for university students, MIE is theoretically situated within
perspectives afforded by work in collaborative learning communities (Blank & Shah,
2004; Tinzmann et al., 1990; Wolf, 2003), cognitive apprenticeship/situated cognition
(Aldrich, 1999; Clark, 1999; Lave, 1991; Leinhardt, 1988) , and the scholarship of public
engagement by universities (Simon, 2000; Spanier, 2000). Students may apply or be
nominated by their instructors for the MIE program. In general, students must have at
least one year of university preparation prior to taking MIE classes.
Education for Community Engagement
11
Classes for university students include a beginning and an advanced seminar.
Seminars are integrated into chamber music and composition classes. They introduce
students to basic concepts of learning in music, the respective and collaborative roles of
performers, composers, and music teachers in school settings, principles of curricular
design, and the practical aspects of partnerships. Students also learn about the landscape
of collaborative music education programs and the differences among one-time
educational performances, programs that emphasize music as a learning tool for academic
subjects, and programs that foster deep learning in music as a foundation for conceptual
integration with other subjects. They critique videos of classroom visits and observe
actual school programs.
Early in the first seminar, students typically begin developing ideas for one school
visit that can be done as an extension of an existing SL program. This visit may not be an
isolated experience. After critiques and revisions, students may present this program on a
pilot basis in one of the SL partner schools. Students who show sufficient progress may
elect to develop a full-fledged “residency” in one grade-level of a SL school. They are
inducted sequentially into every aspect of the collaborative program, and they are
responsible for the same program elements as professional musicians. Students generally
work in groups of two or more, and sometimes a performing group will be combined with
a composer. This year, two music technology students are working with a grade-level of
children to compose music and record it digitally for playback and continuing revision.
Through this process, school students are able to share their work via a website with their
friends and family.
Education for Community Engagement
12
Learning among university students moves from large-group instruction toward
induction into the SL model and the development of sophisticated levels of reflection on
their work. Students are encouraged to analyze how the SL model can be strengthened
and to undertake initiatives they believe will provide improved learning benefits for
children. Some university students, feeling that they have had insufficient understanding
of what goes on in an elementary classroom, have spent several days observing children
and teachers in order to better contextualize their visits. Others have developed close
affiliations with professional musicians that have exceeded their collaborative work in
SL.
Data collection in SL and MIE represents four interactive strands of the program.
The first is the learning that occurs among the elementary school students, which is
assessed primarily through inquiry-based projects that children develop as a part of the
program. A second strand of data has to do with teacher transformation, documenting
how teachers incorporate SL into their classrooms on an ongoing basis and how their
attitudes may or may not shift relative to the value of music in children’s lives and
learning. A third strand of data has to do with changes in musicians’ attitudes and
program implementation, particularly in relation to maintaining high artistic standards
while extending their work toward effective participant engagement. The fourth strand
endeavors to document institutional change, i.e., how schools develop sustained musiclearning cultures, how the symphony moves toward the support of sustained relationships
with school partners, and how the university begins to alter its goals and curriculum
relative to community engagement.
Education for Community Engagement
13
Emergent Themes Relative to University Students’ Learning
This paper deals specifically with data gathered from MIE students since 2002.
Interviews have been conducted regularly to assess university students’ perceptions of the
program, their self-perceptions as pre-professional musicians, and the possible influence
of MIE on their professional outlooks and aspirations. Cross-analyzing the videos of
these interviews has provided insight into students’ growth and offered valuable feedback
into how the program is conducted. Three major categories of themes have emerged
through this analysis.
Theme I. Realizing the human capacity for music.
“Music is most rewarding when you have others to share it with . . .the total
collaboration among teachers, the School of Music, professional musicians, and children
. . . a whole group of people using their individual expertise to serve the greater goal of
authentic musical experiences for kids . . .”
“The most fundamental realization I had was about the best ways to teach music to
children . . . drive-by music education does not work!”
Students consistently indicate a growing awareness of music learning as a social
construct that is facilitated and nurtured in the context of a collaborative learning
community. Within the community, they recognize the essential and overlapping
components of musical engagement, music-making, and musical integrity. They say
things like “I need to be the best I can possibly be musically, and the method also has to
be clear,” or “A lot of musicians do this work, but the question is whether they’re doing it
well.” Several students have echoed the sentiment of a composition major who declared,
Education for Community Engagement
14
“The most rewarding thing to me was when the kids just burst out singing.” Another
composition major asked, “How can you take this music that kids have inside of them
and use the spontaneous expression to lead them to a larger musical reality?” Comments
such as these indicate university students’ realizations that children have an intuitive
intrigue about music, and that tapping into this natural affinity for music inevitably keeps
them engaged in the learning process. Perhaps a young trombonist stated it best when he
exclaimed, “I am just blown away by the amazing musical capacity of young children – it
never occurred to me that they were completely musical beings.” Others have discovered
that MIE and SL cause them to reflect on their own musical development. As expressed
by one student, “This got me thinking what I remember from that age, and I realize how
much more they are getting through this program than what I got. Music is so much
more real for them . . .not just something you learning about . . . but something that is an
integral part of who you are as a human being.”
Theme II. Developing knowledge of collaboration for learning.
“This program opened my eyes to an entirely new world in which music education and
performance are not mutually exclusive . . .”
Students indicate that they find the collaborative model to be a challenging one,
particularly being students rather than professionals. A typical comment came from a
percussionist: “I had this idea that we should just go in and do our thing and the teachers
should figure out the rest. I felt awkward talking with professional teachers about how
we could work together, but they treated me like a professional and so I began to act like
one.” The sequential induction from class work into Sound Learning can also be
Education for Community Engagement
15
daunting: “I didn’t know what I was supposed to do or how to do it – I felt like you were
expecting something from me that I wasn’t ready for.” But as time passes, more
experienced students begin to reflect on their own development: “I guess I just knew
enough to be dangerous. But once I was doing it, seeing the professional musicians and
seeing the teachers, I began to see the possibilities and to realize, hey, I can do this.”
University students sometimes get frustrated with what they feel is too much theory and
not enough practice, particularly in the early stages of learning to work with children.
“OK, so once I got the idea, I wanted to stop talking about it and get out there and do it.”
They also become more discriminating over time about what constitutes effective
practice. “I realized that just because they were professional musicians didn’t mean they
knew how to do this work.” An interesting development in the program has been the
mutual mentoring that occurs between university students and professional musicians. A
young flutist felt pleased that he was able to offer his flute teacher some insights into
working in schools, which was an entirely new experience for his conservatory-trained
mentor.
The tension and pressure associated with growing artistically while gaining
knowledge and skills of engagement present a challenge for many students. “I have to
practice so many hours that sometimes this just seems like something that should wait – I
don’t think I can do it all.” Or, in the words of another student, “This is very important to
me, but it has to be integrated into our program – right now, it’s too much of an add-on.”
Some students believe that training for community engagement ought to be a requirement
rather than an option: “The entire faculty needs to understand that this is the kind of
work we will need to do if we want to earn a living as musicians. It should be
Education for Community Engagement
16
mandatory, and the faculty should be willing to figure out how to make it fit in our course
of study.” When asked whether community engagement work has compromised their
artistry, students unanimously agree with this statement from a bassoon major:
“Definitely not. In fact, I am a more conscious and conscientious performer because of
MIE. I play better now than I would have if I had not had to figure out how to make
music relevant for kids.”
More experienced students evidence a growing sense of professionalism about
their work: “One of the best things is that we get to take on the total responsibility. We
confer with the teachers, we make sure we’re connecting with the kids’ ongoing learning,
we assess ourselves.” As part of their growing professionalism, they develop expanded
views of their responsibility in guiding children’s musical development. “This is such
important work . . . I just can’t go to a school without being prepared. If we let these kids
down now, they’ll never have the joy of knowing what a rich musical world there is out
there.” Related comments acknowledge the importance of sustained relationships and the
sense of worth that university students derive from this work: “The kids just wouldn’t let
me go on the last day – they just kept hanging on to me and asking when I’d be back. I
never realized how much what we had done together meant to them. I think they’re
going to have a whole different attitude about music because of this program.”
Theme III. Career and professional development.
“Making music for and with kids reminded me why I fell in love with music to begin with
. . .and what an extraordinary thing it is to create . . .I’ve applied all of that to my
professional goals . . . I’m a better performer because of it.”
Education for Community Engagement
17
“This is a line-blurring experience . . .as a performance major I am better prepared to
understand my role in building a musical society . . .”
An important question for SL and MIE is whether university students think
beyond the immediate focus of this school-based experience to other implications and
applications. Comments indicate that most, though not all, have an enlarged vision of
career opportunities and the public accountability they have relative to music. The
outcomes of this thought process can be very different. One student expressed his views
this way: “When I came into music school, I majored in music education because I
wanted to teach. But looking at school music programs I now realize that I do not want
to be a typical music teacher. I want to be a performer who teaches through getting kids
involved with what I do. I know this kind of work is going to be a big part of my career.”
For another student, it worked in the opposite way: “I majored in performance because I
knew I didn’t want to teach. Now look what’s happened. I discovered that teaching is my
first love and playing is my second, so I’m changing my major to music education.”
The evolution of professional identity appears to be an inherent dimension of
participating in MIE. In the words of one student, “I know that I am, through and
through, a musician, but I didn’t know exactly how that was going to play itself out in my
adult life. I thought I might get another degree in something else, but I’ve found myself
through this work. I may not work in schools, but I realize now that my purpose in life is
to bring music and people together, and that’s the way I’m going to earn my living.”
Some recognize that community engagement may give them an edge on the competition
when they seek orchestra positions: “I feel like the combination of my performance skills
Education for Community Engagement
18
and knowing how to relate to people will give me a leg up when I audition – at least I
hope so. I really want to be in an orchestra that does community engagement work.”
Comments such as these also indicate a growing sense of public accountability and
service, both to the art of music and to audiences.
Students frequently comment on the fact that being involved in MIE has made
them much more conscious of all the audiences for whom they perform and of their need
to invite the audience into the musical experience. This comment from one student is
illustrative: “The best performers grab their audiences and elicit a musical response – if
we apply these concepts in recitals and concerts, or wherever we’re performing, we’re
going to have a better educated and more appreciative audience.” Another said, “If you
can’t connect with kids, you’re not going to be able to connect with adults.” Echoing the
commitment to a personal sense of responsibility, one student commented, “I feel sorry
for people who only know commercial and pop music . . .I want to do my part to help
them understand and enjoy great music.”
When students are asked how they might apply what they’ve learned
professionally, the answers typically go to taking initiative on behalf of community
engagement. “I’ve learned that you can’t just fall in line behind the way things have
always been. You have to do something to change them. I would write grants or talk to
people about funding this kind of work . . . once people see it, they’ll support it.”
Another comment typical of many is this one: “It all begins with me. One person simply
has to be willing to stretch himself or herself, to take a chance on getting the audience to
sing a theme . . . to drop all the façade around music and musicians and just get into it
with people . . . believe me, I’ve seen how turned on people can get by serious music.”
Education for Community Engagement
19
Toward the Future
Change in the curriculum of higher education occurs slowly and only through a
great deal of labor-intensive effort. However, as students begin internalizing the value of
community engagement training, it is clear that they are advocating for its inclusion as
part of the required curriculum. The evidence suggests that this training connects with
students’ artistic and humanistic motivations, and that it bridges the too-frequent divides
that exist in music schools among performance, composition, and teaching.
To effect enlarged outcomes based on this very focused program will require
acknowledging those areas of complementary knowledge and skill development that
underlie becoming fully developed musicians in the twenty-first century. Not only do
performers and composers need to think in new ways about their work, but music
educators must begin to think more collaboratively about the essential participatory
experiences between practicing musicians and lay participants that will build a more
musically engaged public.
Within schools of music, programs such as SL and MIE can be catalysts for a
more collaborative culture of learning oriented toward the welfare of students rather than
the self-fulfillments of teachers. By breaking down artificial divisions among the subdisciplines of music and teaching the skills of community engagement, we may be able to
create a new generation of musicians who model an ethos of service and public
accountability, and who can effect mutual commitments to the musical well-being of our
society.
From a research perspective, we hope at some point to collect longitudinal data on
students who have gone through community engagement training. Our hope is that they
Education for Community Engagement
will be leading fulfilling lives as musicians dedicated to the service of a musically
engaged public.
20
Education for Community Engagement
21
References
Aldrich, R. (1999). The apprentice in history. In P. Ainsley & H. Rainbird (Eds.),
Apprenticeship: Towards a new paradigm of learning (pp. 14-24). London: Kogan
Page Limited.
Blank, M., & Shah, B. (January 2004). Educators and community sharing responsibility
for student learning. Infobrief. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Clark, L. (1999). The changing structure and significance of apprenticeship with special
reference to construction. In P. Ainley & H. Rainbird (Eds.), Apprenticeship:
Towards a new paradigm of learning (pp. 25-40). London: Kogan Page Limited.
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L.B. Resnick, J.M.
Levine, & S.D. TEasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp.
349-362). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Leinhardt, G. (1988). Situated knowledge and expertise in teaching. In J. Calderhead
(Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 146-168). London: Falmer Press.
McCarthy, K.F., & Jinnett, K. (2001). A new framework for building participation
in the arts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
McCarthy, K.F., Brooks, A., Lowell, J., & Zakaras, L. (2001). The performing
arts in a new era. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
McCarthy, K.F., Ondaatje, E. H., Zakaras, L., & Brooks, A. (2004). Gifts of the muse:
Reframing the debate about the benefits of the arts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation.
Education for Community Engagement
22
National Endowment for the Arts (2004). 2002 Survey of public participation in the arts.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
Simon, L.A. (2000). University outreach: Realizing the promise through vision
and accountability. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Spanier, G.S. (2000). The engaged university. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania
State University.
Tinzmann, M.B., Friedman, L., Jewell-Kelly, S., Mootry, P., Nachtigal, P., & Fine, C.
(1990). Why should schools be learning communities? Oak Brook IL: North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Wolf, D.P. (2003). The arts and school reform: Lessons and possibilities from
The Annenberg Challenge Arts Projects. Providence RI: Annenberg Institute
for School Reform at Brown University.
Education for Community Engagement
23