The three models described in this issue of Monographs are like good teachers. They share an earnest concern for providing arts education programs in communities where the schools have been challenged by local economic difficulties. They have thoughtfully examined the resources of the community and have constructed their own particular approaches toward a solution. They provide inspiration and direction for others.

Like a good teacher, the models recognize the fundamental differences between training and education. Where training seeks to fill an empty mind with solutions from the outside, education seeks to draw out the innate qualities of the individual from within and enable and facilitate learning by the sensitive provision of relevant resources.

The philosophy behind Goals 2000 is that our children and the education systems in our nation can best be served by establishing a consensus on a set of high expectations for student achievement. This common vision of the outcomes and critical role of public education is characterized by the fundamental principle of collective national wisdom and concern rather than a top-down, federal take-over of the states' Constitutional rights and responsibilities to determine and provide education. The law stresses the essential role of the states and communities in defining their own set of high expectations and the approaches for reaching those goals. Goals 2000 also offers resources to the states and local districts in support of those plans with over 90 percent of the funds directed at the local level.

The models described in this issue from the East Coast, West Coast, and Midwest are examples of that philosophy in action. Each is led by a community arts organization which recognizes and assumes the responsibility of playing a leadership role in finding solutions to the difficult problem of providing high quality arts education experiences for all children. Each demonstrates a process for developing a shared vision of a better future and galvanizing local support in making that vision a reality. None of them claims to have all the answers for everyone's problems. In developing their models, the communities have examined other approaches and have gleaned important ideas from them. In the end, they have crafted their own particular approaches which capitalize on the unique individuals, resources, and situations in their communities.

CONTENTS
Local communities define their own high standards for arts education.
Community partnerships.
Prince George's County, Maryland.
Atlas in Prince George's County.
Portland, Oregon.
Cultural planning leads to arts education initiative.
ArtsPlan Schools Program Goals.
The ArtsPlan Schools research and development phase timeline.
Kalamazoo County, Michigan.
Breaking the mold: The Kalamazoo Countywide Arts Enhancement Feasibility study.

The three models described in this issue of Monographs are like good teachers. They share an earnest concern for providing arts education programs in communities where the schools have been challenged by local economic difficulties. They have thoughtfully examined the resources of the community and have constructed their own particular approaches toward a solution.