So you think you saw the Easter Bunny this morning? But you’re not sure.
The current status of the arts and music are like that in our public schools. One might think these subjects are returning, they’re back…or, not really. Just like the hippity-hoppity bunny that moves in lightning speed, privatization of public schools is sneaky that way.
The April issue of Phi Delta Kappan (PDK) is titled Arts & Music in School. I couldn’t wait to read my copy. But my hopes were dashed. Every article leads to partnerships—not school funding directly for arts and music classes. The issue is also about integrating these subjects into other classes and alludes to a technology takeover (no surprise there).
There’s no mention of bringing back qualified arts and music teachers. There’s little talk of reviving these classes as subjects, without integrating them into math or language arts, to make the school curriculum whole again.
First, Destruction
It was catastrophic to defund the arts and music in schools. Mostly, under NCLB, these subjects were slashed to overemphasize reading and math and high-stakes testing.
Some suburban schools and magnets get arts and music. In most charter schools these subjects are incomplete. For many children these classes are no longer a reality. Public schools without arts and music become unpleasant places for parents to send their children.
Piecemeal Federally Funded Partnerships
Now, we are led to believe arts and music are returning. But instead of funding these subjects directly in every public school, students have to rely on, and hope, that outside groups will throw them a taste of these subjects. The first PDK article is “The Art of Partnerships: Community Resources for Arts Education.”
- Young Audiences of Houston have the Arts Access Initiative.
- In Boston, it’s the Arts Expansion Initiative coordinated by a nonprofit organization called EdVestors.
- Chicago is the Creative Schools Initiative by Ingenuity .
- Seattle’s Creative Advantage is where students there get arts and music.
- New Orleans’s KID smART has artists take over as teachers.
These groups look at first glance to be doing nice things. Who can argue against any kind of arts and music compared to nothing? Partnerships could be fine to embellish these programs if students hadn’t lost these subjects to begin with. Such support would add flair and increase community participation with schools. But that’s not what this is about.
With these nonprofits there’s talk of measurable goals, rigorous data collection, grant writing, marketing, and how to convince philanthropies to donate. For most, there’s the desire to improve student test scores in other classes. It’s often about aligning arts and music to Common Core.
When schools get budget cuts that affect their arts and music programs, when the government looks to others to take those classes over, and when funding is determined mostly by outsiders—local school districts are at their mercy to fund those programs.
Partners and philanthropists will fund arts and music the way they see fit, or are able, always measuring student output. Even if the programs seem good today, will they still be there tomorrow? Also, while such partnerships might provide some benefit for students in a big city, what about other places? Not every town has a group willing, or able, to support the arts and music.
Technology Takeover of Art and Music
Another PDK article is boldly upfront, “Let’s Get Rid of Art Education in Schools,” as if there is that much art to get rid of. It is written by an artist, and it is filled with unproven statements. Here’s an example:
In short, every child starts out with a natural interest in art, but for most it is slowly drained away until all that’s left is a handful of teens in eyeliner and black clothing whose parents worry they’ll never move out of the basement.
The author goes on to highlight technology for art in the future. He says, Stop making pinch pots; instead, build a 3-D printer and turn out artificial hands for homeless amputees.
It needs to be said, that most of us are not against adding technology to the public school curriculum, and that would include 3-D printers.
But this is about replacing other forms of art education with technology. And it is about who controls our public schools.
Why can’t students work on pinch pots too?
Arts Integration
PDK has plenty of art integration talk. For example, in “Orchestrating a New Approach to Learning,” the Phoenix Symphony is partnering with the local school district. But in order to get students interested in music, musicians have to tie their musical abilities to academics. In order to collaborate with students, musicians can’t just teach the beauty of music, it has to be tied to a math lesson!
Certainly a teacher can incorporate art and music in other classes. But saying you have arts and music covered this way is bogus. Just like saying that providing professional development to everyone in order to bypass hiring real arts and music teachers is deceptive.
The arts and music deserve first class status. We need to offer these classes to students who know they excel, and who crave these subjects from the depths of their souls. We’ve all known students who might not do well academically, but who thrive in the arts. The arts are for everyone, and the greatest inclusion in our schools can take place in those classes.
Band and orchestra, including marching band, provides important socialization, pulling students from all backgrounds together and generating school pride. Without the consistency of thriving arts and music classes in a school, life for students is dim.
More Proof: How Much Is Needed?
School districts and the students in them should not have to justify arts and music by saying that they improve test scores, or they will help children do better math, or they will keep students in school. To continue to stress that we need such accountability with these subjects is foolish. It displays a lack of trust in democratically run public schools and arts and music teachers.
Like every other blog post I’ve written about returning these subjects to schools, here is another reminder that there are jobs in these areas. They are competitive but they do exist. Here is a link.
This country needs to quit with the trickery. Pretending the arts are returning with partnerships, or through subject integration, or technology, is only a charade. Our tax dollars should go directly to public schools for these programs and to real arts and music teachers.
Many students in our public schools still do not get adequate arts and music instruction. Until we quit kidding ourselves and commit to fully funding arts and music for all students, they never will. In other words, if you believe you really saw the Easter Bunny, contact me. We need to talk.
______________________________
Note: National Core Arts Standards are dance, media arts, music, theater, and visual arts. So why aren’t school administrators penalized when they don’t provide students with these subjects? Should we not demand proof that every school including charters and voucher schools provides some experience in these areas to all students?
References
Bowen, Daniel H., and Brian Kisida. “The Art of Partnerships: Community Resources for Arts Education.” Phi Delta Kappan. 98 (7): 8-14.
Gregory, Danny. “Let’s Get Rid of Art Education in Schools.” Phi Delta Kappan. 98 (7): 21-22.
Mackin, Eileen, Robert Mackin, John Obremski, and Katherine McKie. “A Districtwide Commitment to Arts Integration.” Phi Delta Kappan. 98 (7): 29-33.
Kaplan, Michael. “Orchestrating a New Approach to Learning.” Phi Delta Kappan. 98 (7): 23-28.
ciedie aech says
The ever more popular formula for killing noncontrolled creative thought inside ANY school subject: “With these nonprofits there’s talk of measurable goals, rigorous data collection, grant writing, marketing, and how to convince philanthropies to donate. “
Nancy Bailey says
Indeed worrisome. Micromanaging every step a student takes. Thanks, Ciedie.
jo says
It is this insane drive to whittle every subject down to standardized test scores that has almost obliterated authentic writing in our public schools. How ironic is that? Where are the future poets, and story tellers, and dramatists?
Nancy Bailey says
When you have the David Coleman’s of the world running things I guess it should be expected, Jo. Thank you!
Joan Kramer says
I’ll never forget how angry I was when my granddaughter’s kindergarten teacher thrillingly told me that the dance teacher they had (maybe once a week) incorporated the ABCs into her dance.
I will never forget the creative dancing I did as a child and how important it was to me. Rich people’s children don’t have to put up with this. The private schools have it all — dance, orchestra, choir, drama, visual arts, ceramics, photography, etc. All our public schools should too!
Nancy Bailey says
Great point! I am never surprised to see private schools advertising the arts–and recess! Thanks, Joan!
Denis Ian says
I can hardly believe what I’ve just read. And this is presented as educational and artistic ingenuity?
I have never encountered such a dismal understanding of art in the pubic schools. Who ever authored this should shrink from public view … for all of ever.
Nancy Bailey says
It was a group of articles with the same message, Denis. And it is pretty dismal. Thank you.
Mitchell Robinson says
Thanks for this Nancy–I saw this issue and was disappointed, but not surprised. As a music teacher, and now music teacher educator, I have a special interest in school college collaboration–it’s what I wrote my dissertation about.
With respect to the piece on the Phoenix orchestra, I left the following comment a week ago–it’s still awaiting “moderation”…
1. Arizona State University has one of the finest music education programs in the country. Why wouldn’t the folks involved in this “collaboration” reach out to local experts who could have provided much needed knowledge and advice on music teaching and learning, pedagogical approaches, and school music practices?
2. “At that point, ready or not, Mind Over Music had become the nation’s first arts integration program involving a professional symphony orchestra.” No, not even close. There is a large and rich body of research on arts education partnerships, and dozens of symphonies, large and small, have engaged in these sorts of projects for many decades. Starting up a project like this without doing any sort of literature review first is irresponsible and unacceptable.
3. “Graham found the symphony’s first partner school just a few blocks away: Arizona State University Preparatory Academy, a Title I charter school…” Why not ask a local public school rather than a charter school? This choice makes me question the orchestra’s relationship to the local community. Less than 5% of children nation-wide attend charter schools, and many charters fill their classrooms via lottery, “creaming off” the easiest to teach students and refusing admission to kids with special needs–why site your project in this kind of setting?
4. The charter school “embraced the new program, agreeing to a three-year pilot project, with some classrooms participating and others providing a control group for evaluators.” Again, no. If you suspect your “treatment condition” is something that is good for children, then instead of running a “true experimental” study (one that requires a control group that does not receive the treatment), why not use a “quasi experimental” design, so that all kids receive the treatment? Many educational researchers consider this sort of control-group design to be unethical when applied to children–I’m surprised the school’s principal and/or IRB approved the study.
5. “Another plan is to create a program for symphony orchestras that want to improve their community outreach but don’t have an education coordinator on staff. “We want to be able to provide them with the professional development they need,” Ward says, “along with a start-up guide and a bank of lesson plans. The Phoenix Symphony has figured all of that out for them. All they need to do is find the school.” Again, no. You can’t just “clone” these kinds of collaborative relationships like fast-food franchises, especially with orchestras that “don’t have an education coordinator on staff.” These collaborations depend on the persons involved; not on start-up guides and downloadable lesson plans. The PSO has “figured out” something that works for them, with one partner school, in their specific setting. They have no business “scaling up” their model for use in other places. Let’s see symphony orchestras partner with their local public school district music programs to support school music programs, instead of setting up a parallel system of shadow music programs that in some cases only serve to hasten the cuts to public school music programs.
Nancy Bailey says
Thank you, Mitchell, for sharing your expertise and for bringing such clarity to the Phoenix article. Your points are interesting and well taken. I especially love the last sentence.