Dewey21C

Creativity is the opposite of conformity and is nurtured by a supportive, positive environment that allows students to engage in creative play and honest communication; a place where their fears and vulnerabilities are, at least, acknowledged and not ridiculed.

On this last workday before the July 4th holiday weekend, I would like to share with you a piece by Linda Starkweather, who teaches theater at Eastridge High School's School of Performing Arts in Irondequoit, New York.

Linda's article appeared in New York Teacher, the magazine from my good friends and colleagues at the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), which is the state-wide teachers' union in New York.

It's a touching article, from someone in the trenches.

Click here to read POV: The Challenge of Teaching Art in the Public School System

Here's an excerpt:

Most teachers have heard, and indignantly bristle, at the mean-spirited phrase, Those who can do, do. Those who can't do, teach. But the dilemma facing public schools -- with the realization that the arts might be important, if not essential, in cultivating the imagination and creativity of our children in order to reverse the blind progress of a culture gone mad with greed and individual success -- is that they need artists to teach the arts. And artists, by their very nature, do not respond to institutionalized fear as motivation. The world has become a place of terror and uncertainty, fueled by institutions that have learned the secret of controlling their members quite effectively by using fear. Although our government has the monopoly on this strategy, most institutions are operating within that same paradigm.

I am really happy to be able to bring you an interview with two really swell colleagues of mine: Stephen Yaffe and Don Glass, who have teamed up on Making Room At The Table: A Needs Assessment of Arts Education for Special Needs Students in New York City Public Schools. Stephen is the principal investigator and Don has authored the introduction. I have had the great pleasure of working with Stephen, as he is the evaluator on the Teacher Artist Training Institute at CAE. I have known Don since he was a research associate at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform.

Stephen and Don were kind enough to take some time from their busy schedules to participate in this interview for Dewey21C.

RK: What were the goals of this needs assessment and what were the key findings?

DG: Richard, thanks for providing this opportunity to share the findings of this study. Stephen Yaffe approached VSA arts with the idea to conduct a needs assessment on the status of arts education for students with disabilities in New York City. We saw it as a way to invest in an important study that could inform the work of our local affiliate and like-minded arts organizations, as well as provide us with an example for conducting needs assessments in our affiliate network. I worked with Stephen through-out the process, but I'll let him provide the key findings since he was the Principal Investigator.

SY: Thank you, Don. This needs assessment was conducted to ascertain primary obstacles to and opportunities for providing quality arts education to students with special needs in New York City public schools. The chief purpose was to help practitioners and policy makers - in the school and arts communities in New York City - to gain a deeper understanding of the field and its complexities, as well as provoke reflection and action. Professional development (PD) for teaching artists (TA) working with this population was considered at length. The majority of teaching artists who participated in a focus group and interviews called their primary means of training "trial by fire". Over two-thirds of a broader survey of teaching artists also cited "trial by fire" as their initial experience in learning to work with students with special needs. 33% of the survey respondents said that they have never received professional development regarding these students. The other 66% who had undergone such training, did so as noted below:

click here to view table.pdf

To say this another way, in thirteen key professional development areas, slightly more than 40% of teaching artist respondents currently working with students with special needs in New York City public school classrooms - self-contained and/or inclusion - have received professional development in one domain - "special needs classifications", and anywhere from 33% down to 11% have received training in the other twelve.

This is in the process of changing. More and more art organizations are recognizing the need to provide training to their TA's in working with populations with special needs. In fact, 78.6% of arts administrator survey respondents said their organizations offer such PD. However, the majority of arts administrators interviewed and who participated in the focus group also spoke of the need to go further in their professional development efforts.

RK: Did you find anything that surprised you?

SY: Absolutely. The biggest surprise was in discovering many contributions that inadvertently undermined the arts education opportunities for students with special needs, and that such contributions were sometimes made by those most supportive of the arts. An example of an inadvertent consequence is the practice of "clumping" classes for arts residencies. There are two major forms of clumping: (1) two or more self-contained classes are combined; or (2) a self-contained class and a general education class are combined.

While arts organization administrators by and large felt the practice was not a good one, most did not want to jeopardize school partnerships by turning down a request to combine classes. Schools also wanted to get the most bang for their buck in residencies and were unable to justify spending the same amount of money on a class of, say, twelve students as on a class more than twice that size. As you know, self-contained special education class sizes can be considerably smaller than general education ones for sound educational reasons.

For some populations, notably those on the Autism spectrum, practices like class clumping can bring new and unfamiliar circumstances to young people who require consistency, routine, and ease-in-transition. For others, especially those with severe behavioral issues, combining classes could prove volatile. In the end, the students, nor the arts organizations are served well. Clumping inadvertently diminishes the quality of arts education by forcing an instructional environment that is known to be pedagogically unviable for and unsuitable to students with special needs.

RK: What did the assessment indicate about teaching artists, classroom teachers, and certified arts specialists?

SY: As I mentioned earlier, there is a greater need for professional development as more students are being diagnosed as special needs, and more students with special needs are being moved into increasingly inclusive settings. Consequently more classroom teachers, arts specialists, and TA's are working with this population. These educators recognize the need to build capacity and knowledge and identified their professional development needs in response to this study:

Arts Specialists:
• Adaptive curriculum planning, especially for inclusive settings
• Adaptation of the NYC Blueprint for students with special needs
• Special needs classifications
• Documentation/Evidence gathering and how to best use it to teach others - especially classroom teachers, administrators and parents - the value of arts in education

Classroom Teachers:
• Special needs classifications
• Disability-specific instructional approaches
• How to better work with para-professionals
• Arts assessment
• Curriculum design

Teaching Artists:
• Understanding special needs classifications
• Targeting achievable outcomes and planning/implementing appropriate curriculum
• Differentiating instruction
• More professional development in general

RK: What are some new structures, resources, approaches, etc., that you would like to see developed?

SY: Ongoing Exchange and Dialogue: However much professional development is called for, designed and offered; however much pertinent and valuable resources are brought together and made available; however much suggestions made in the study are implemented, the value of open conversation, sharing, and reflection among peers and across stakeholder groups in building and deepening knowledge, understanding, and capacity cannot be overstated.

Providing venues for such dialogue can greatly contribute to increasing the quality of arts education offered to students with special needs in New York City public schools. The study calls for a new kind of inclusion - in building knowledge and capacity, preparing, implementing, structuring, partnering. Throughout the needs assessment, I was struck by how what one constituency did not know another did or could help profoundly with and - not surprisingly - how much people working in this field want to help others.

Professional Development for Para-professionals: Arts specialists, classroom teachers, teaching artists, school and arts administrators often spoke of the value of having para-professionals assisting in classrooms:
• The ability to work in small groups
• The ability to provide more individualized instruction as needed
• The ability to draw off the often-deep knowledge that some para-professionals have of students.

However, the quantity and quality of para-professional assistance was often called into question. This was largely due to lack of their experience and knowledge regarding arts education. Offering para-professionals professional development in arts education for students with special needs that includes a mentoring component is a strong and viable entry point. It is also a timely one.

The NYC Department of Education and the New York State Education Department recently increased the required number of college credits newly hired, full-time para-professionals must earn by the end of their third year of service. This is generally seen as part of an effort to professionalize the position of paraprofessional. If PD for arts education could be provided for course credit, all the better.

Looking at Student Work: One way of further connecting teaching artists, arts specialists, and classroom teachers- and possibly, of linking their collaborations with whole school effort - is providing opportunities to collaboratively examine samples of student work. Looking at student work can play a key role in deepening knowledge about student learning and the role of the arts in special education. Engagement with the arts can reveal abilities and, sometimes, hitherto unknown capacities. For example, highly non-verbal students have been known to break into spontaneous speech during improvisation, or to sing fluidly to music. This is valuable information not just for classroom teachers and arts specialists, but for speech therapists. Similarly, physical and occupational therapists may benefit from watching motor activities of students engaged in dance, creative movement and/or visual arts.

Of course, to do this requires building the capacity of these constituencies in looking at the art work of special needs students. This presents an entry point for those organizations who might offer such training and an important opportunity for the field of arts in special education. Providing such professional development could well draw jointly upon the resources and expertise of NYC DOE and outside cultural organizations.

RK: What else would you like to add?

SY: The field of arts in special education is tremendously rich, greater than any one of its stakeholder perspectives or needs, greater than all of its stakeholder parts. If it is to meaningfully move forward and deepen the quality of arts education for special needs learners, there must be room at the table for all these voices. It is necessary for these groups to engage in ongoing dialogue, to seriously address the field's differences from general education arts education, to follow the lead of its own needs and requirements, and to understand it has much to offer teaching and learning - not only in special education, but to education in general.

DG: I want to thank Stephen for sharing the key findings of the needs assessment study, and note that when Stephen is not conducting needs assessments, he is an instructional coach for our Communities of Practice and Teaching Artist Fellowship programs. As a coach, he facilitates discussions around examining student work and fostering inclusive arts instruction. In other words, he provides teaching artists with feedback on how to include more students, remove barriers to the curriculum, and improve their arts instruction for a range of students, which by the way, are some of the general professional development needs and entry points identified in the study.

RK: What else are you both working on?

SY: I'm also evaluating numerous arts education programs, and am the co-chair of The Arts in Special Education Consortium, a NYC-based organization dedicated to bringing together stakeholders in the field to share ideas, build capacity, understanding and sense of value.

DG: VSA arts is exploring the relationships between inclusive arts teaching and learning and Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Ideas, tools, and processes that we have introduced in our conferences, professional development institutes, and online professional learning communities, are now supporting teaching artists in our program and affiliate networks to understand and apply the Universal Design for Learning guidelines to their arts residencies (i.e., providing multiple, flexible options for representing content, engaging students, and demonstrating knowledge and skills). Over the next year, VSA arts will be sharing various examples and case studies of what inclusive arts teaching and learning looks like in practice. Most of our rich examples have come from our professional learning community teams. We hope to add a team from our NYC or New York State affiliate next year to contribute to our inquiry into inclusive arts education!

Click Here to View Presentation of Report--Making Room At The Table.pdfStephen Yaffe, is an arts and education consultant. He has evaluated

In today's entry for her recurring guest blog, titled CliffNotes, Jane Remer leapfrogs from my most recent blog entry, to three big points. I would also like to point you to a very thoughtful post responding to that very same blog, by my friend Carol Fineberg: Click here to read Carol Fineberg's comments on my most recent entry. RK


The Myth of Arts and School Reform, Redux
Richard Kessler's strong June 24 blog entry (Arts Education Should Align with School Reform. Really?) prompts additional thoughts dredged up from my encounters with this issue over the years. I will be brief:

1. Frustrated by lack of sustained recognition and support, the arts education and cultural community turn to advocacy, hoping to scratch their way into the consciousness and conscience of the general public, the policy makers (national, state and local), the money givers (public and private), and occasionally the education community.

2. Arts education advocacy tends to be opportunistic, claim-based persuasion that tries to co-opt research and every latest fad, craze, or buzz that commands public attention. It grabs at slogans that identify new waves or problems, latches on to them, and then asserts, even trumpets, the ability/capacity of the arts to help reach whatever goal that has been identified or solve whatever problem is lamented.

 3. The impetus for this behavior is an honest desire to draw attention to the arts and their power to engage and enlighten us. History teaches us that this approach is flawed and needs rethinking. Examples across the last five decades:
a. 1960s: The arts will improve our citizens' quality of life, help us address social and financial inequities, and lead us to the Great Society. (A nice socially alert bubble that the Vietnamese War and the lack of infrastructure quickly defeated)
b. 1970s to today: Artists can change schools and get us back to basics. (Even the schools struggle to change themselves, their philosophies, structure and focus; the arts have a role to play, but are rarely strong enough to lead the process.)
c. 1980's: The arts can reform schools. (If you read the abundant literature on school reform over the decades, it is crystal clear that one wave after another fails because of the lack of full commitment and implementation throughout the school, the lack of infrastructure and financial support, and the inability to sustain alterations in the culture of the school society. The arts, always a minor presence in the majority of schools, haven't the power to move these mountains.)
d. 1990's: The arts can reform teaching and learning.(The arts can influence, help shape and deepen understanding; they can add other desirable qualities to the school environment, and attract attention and often support from the community. Given their scarcity and limited time in school cultures, expectations must be modest and shaped accordingly.)
e. 2000: Standards in the arts can change the course of education nationally and locally. (Well, no, they can't; or at least, they haven't, yet.)
f. 2009: The arts can help us compete in a global economy. (No, neither directly or indirectly) Can we clear our palette? Can we redirect our thinking and claiming to address the arts as education and together figure out how to assure their place in the spectrum of teaching and learning in every school? Slogans don't work. Hard work and collective thinking might.

Jane Remer June 26, 2009
************************************************************************************************************
JANE REMER'S CLIFFNOTES We are at another rocky precipice in our history that threatens the survival of the arts in our social fabric and our school systems. The timing and magnitude of the challenges have prompted me to speak out about some of the most persistent issues in the arts education field during the last forty-plus years. My credo is simple: The arts are a moral imperative. They are fundamental to the cognitive, affective, physical, and intellectual development of all our children and youth. They belong on a par with the 3 R's, science, and social studies in all of our elementary and secondary schools. These schools will grow to treasure good quality instruction that develops curious, informed, resilient young citizens to participate fully in a democratic society that is in constant flux. I have chosen the title Cliff Notes for this forum. It serves as metaphor and double entendre: first, as short takes on long-standing and complicated issues, and second, as a verbal image of the perpetually perilous state of the arts as an essential part of general public education. I plan to focus on possible solutions and hope to stimulate thoughtful dialogue on-line or locally.

************************************************************************************************************

Jane Remer has worked nationally for over forty years as an author, educator, researcher, foundation director and consultant. She was an Associate Director of the John D. Rockefeller 3rd Fund's Arts in Education Program and has taught at Teachers College, Columbia University and New York University. Ms. Remer works directly in and with the public schools and cultural organizations, spending significant time on curriculum, instruction and collaborative action research with administrators, teachers , students and artists. She directs the Capezio/Ballet Makers Dance Foundation, and her publications include Changing Schools Through the Arts and Beyond Enrichment: Building Arts Partnerships with Schools and Your Community. She is currently writing Beyond Survival: Reflections On The Challenge to the Arts As General Education. A graduate of Oberlin College, she attended Yale Law School and earned a masters in education from Yale Graduate School.
*************************************************************************************************************

Among advocates and wannabe advocates, I have lately been hearing that arts education must align with school reform. I heard this the other day at a splendid presentation by Narric Rome of Americans for the Arts and Najean Lee of the League of American Orchestras, at the NYC Arts Education Roundtable's annual meeting. I have also come across this recently through discussions of the National Performing Arts Convention (NPAC) Arts Education working group.

And certainly, it is something that's been bandied about for years. I authored and co-authored a report or two, or three, that asserted this very same notion.

Fifteen years ago, I think it made a lot of sense, although I think the field wasn't ready to take on what the assertion meant at that time, which was really about becoming more closely aligned with teaching and learning in other subject areas, united by the desire to improve public education.

School Reform.

Reform School.

Interesting what happens when transposed?

Think about that for a little while.

Anyhow, today, school reform is basically about injecting market driven forces into a school system, and providing district designed indicators to drive the market. The idea here is that as one big city mayor proclaimed: "show me competition, and I will show you improvement."

Just as competition is purported to improve access and cost of health care, so it goes for public schools.

The market force/lever is the standardized test scores, and to some degree graduation rates. Higher test scores equal a better product, which will be desired by people who are given choice, as the zoned school concept is eradicated. Conversely, lower test scores will produce a worse produce, which will go out of business because people won't choose that product, or the pressure to compete will force improvement. Also, if you get rid of the unionized labor, a real market can drive the teaching and administrative workforce. And of course, the charter schools and vouchers are connected to this as well.

What is more, teachers will receive bonuses based on these tests, which will also be used to determine tenure, if there is tenure, and will be used to determine dismissal/termination of low performing teachers.. Likewise for principals. Ultimately, although this doesn't appear to be in the accountability offerings, school superintendents and others "accountable" for the school system would be fired too, based on performance.

(Interesting is that when faced with this issues back in the 70's and 80's, Al Shanker used to ask how the child would be held accountable?)

But, as we've seen in the corporate world, often the CEO's get rewarded for poor performance. The golden parachute doesn't change its atomic structure upon the company's poor performance.

This entry isn't a debate on the purported merits of taking the free market that gave us sub prime mortgages, an abominable state of health care, etc., and reforming schools through the injection of a free market theory into such schools and their related systems.

Instead, it's an open question as to whether or not the arts education advocates calling for arts education to be part of school reform, as it is defined today, are calling for the right approach, as well as the question of whether or not those making this call know what they're asking us to get into.

Of course, there are and will be arts organizations that create charter schools, just as there were arts organizations that were core partners creating small schools, through Gates and Carnegie Corporation funded small school initiatives. But is that really aligning with school reform today?

School improvement. I can buy that term.

School reform/reform school, I think some questions need to be asked, and asked again.

Today, on The Takeaway, there was a segment on the NAEP Arts Assessment 2008.

Click here to go straight to the media player for that segment: Name that Instrument! The State of Arts Education.

It's worth a listen, they had a very good lineup of guests speaking on the issue.

NAEP is universally considered to be the "gold standard" for K-12 educational assessment.

My good friend and colleague Lynne Munson, Executive Director of Common Core, has posted a an entry on her blog that compares the NAEP Arts Assessment 2008 with the NAEP math and reading tests. Lynne, a former deputy director of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and author of Exhibitionism: Art in the Era of Intolerance, concludes that the arts assessment is a far cry from what we all know as the gold standard in reading and math.

It would be fair to say that it's more like the chrome standard.

Here's an excerpt:

How would you describe NAEP?  Here's what comes to mind for me:  a rigorous achievement test given regularly to a statistically significant number of students in a large number of schools in every state.  That description certainly fits NAEP's reading and math assessments.  In 2007 NAEP's reading and math tests each were given to approximately 350,000 4th and 8th graders at more than 14,000 schools.

Now let's look at the NAEP arts assessment.  The 2008 test was given to just 7,900 students in 520 schools.  Now, for analysis purposes, cut that number in half because the test was actually two tests-one each in music and visual arts-and half the sample took each. So fewer than 4,000 students in 260 schools took each test.  That's about 80 kids in five schools in each state.  Also, it was given just to 8th graders-no 4th or 12th graders need apply.  And, this is only the second time the arts assessment has been given in over 25 years. Reading has been given 13 times during that same period.

NAEP's arts assessment is a different class of test than the NAEP tests we talk about most often.  Let's not be confused about the quality of data the arts test represents.

A radio producer called me yesterday and asked what I thought about some of the questions on the test. He thought that some of what the 8th graders were being asked seemed to be a bit abstract, and stated that few adults, even those who appreciated art would not know the answers. He wondered whether or not the tests made any sense.

What does NAEP tell us, really? Based upon the sample size of eighth graders, in art it tells us what they know and to some extent are able to do (based upon the performance component). In music, it tells us what an eighth grade student knows about music, but not what they are able to do as there is no performance component. And in writing this, I have great misgivings, as I am not sure if what we are asking of these students on the tests is what we want them to know. That's what the radio producer was asking me, basically.

What a student knows, is clearly in relation to the best that NAEP could do on an age and grade appropriate spectrum. What makes even this difficult, and in particular, places it wildly out of context, is that unlike math and reading, there are eighth grade students who may have had practically no music or arts instruction prior to eighth grade, while at the same time there are students who have been engaged in high quality sequential instruction for years leading up to the eighth grade.

I believe this creates a question of context that does not appear in math and reading. It made me think that perhaps we needed to look at something I would call quality of access. Lots of people would like to think the NAEP results really say something about teacher quality, or quality of instruction, and to some degree that true. However, the quality of access may be a more important factor, for without the sustained access which creates a continuum of instruction that is relatively common among all eighth grade students, the NAEP tests are somewhat meaningless.

By the way, you know that dance and theater were not included in either 1997 nor 2008 because the NAEP couldn't find enough programs to create a statistically significant sample size?

I firmly believe that any statement NAEP makes about its assessment indicating that there hasn't been a narrowing of the curriculum to be a terrible misstep, since they really don't have that data on any reliable level. As I mentioned in my first post, they know what administrators report on what is offered. Even if we take that at face value, for the sake of argument, with all of the expanded efforts in the past 11 years totaling to a holding of the line, not very good line as equity and access goes, is in fact, a terribly disappointing measure, one that should cause many in this field to rethink approach.

One or two last thoughts.

NAEP doesn't touch why we believe the arts are special, and to some degree different than other subject areas. It doesn't address things like executive function, attitudes, or for that matter, the magic and beauty of the arts as a form of expression, builder of community, channel to the imagination, and all the other things that distinguish the arts from some of the other subject areas.

I think that this NAEP assessment is a terrific challenge for us to ask for more, to ask for better, to demand that the arts assessment receive the gold standard, not the chrome standard, and to do some of our own research taking this to the next important step.

For example, we are talking with Jennifer Jennings about trying to disentangle some of these long run trends in arts participation and access using the three repeat samples of high school students that we have from the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s (High School and Beyond, the National Educational Longitudinal Study, and the Educational Longitudinal Study 2002). Each has high school transcript data as well as data about extracurricular participation, so it seems possible to identify long run trends in who participates within schools and how much (not just which schools have access, as NAEP arts did above), and also to see if the super accountability states saw declines in participation for low-performing kids over this period.

That's just one interesting issue out there that represents how you can leapfrog from NAEP.

And, to wrap up for the moment, NAEP appearing at the same time as an NEA report that is rather startling in the declines it shows in arts participation, is quite the cocktail, don't you think? In the very same week. How do ya like them apples?

But let's not forget that the NEA study did not really look at the more popular forms of art. The NAEP test suffers from some of the same issue. I would love to see a study look at the complete picture of arts participation, as well as arts learning...

NAEP Finds Schools' Offerings in Arts Hold Steady

It's been eleven years since the last arts assessment from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), known as the "Nation's Report Card." NAEP is also widely viewed as the gold standard of educational assessment.

On Friday June 15th, the 2008 "Arts Report Card" was released. Before I get into anything else, I do have to say how important it is that NAEP includes the arts. While there will be big and small issues to debate, the effort here is important and hopefully something that can be done again in less than 11 years, while being improved upon greatly.

Here's the link straight to the NAEP website.

Here's a link to the NAEP Commissioner's remarks.

Here's a link to Secretary Duncan's statement on NAEP.

Here's a good Duncan quote:

This Arts Report Card should challenge all of us to make K-12 arts programs more available to America's children and youth. Such programs not only engage students' creativity and academic commitment today, but they uniquely equip them for future success and fulfillment. We can and should do better for America's students.

Way to go Mr.Secretary!  Let's all keep that statement in mind when it comes to "Race to The Top" funds from the USDOE.

Here is Sam Dillon's piece for the NY Times: Mediocre Arts Skills for American Eighth Graders

A few notes:
1. NAEP looked at music and visual arts at the 8th grade level and includes both public and private schools
2. NAEP did not look at theater or dance.
3. Purely In terms of access, NAEP looked only at what was offered to students sampled, and found that there wasn't much change in the provision of art and music at the 8th grade level.
4. NAEP reports an achievement gap in art and music, tracking to "racial, ethnic, gender, and socio-economic levels."
5. NAEP sampled a total of 7,900 eigth-graders nationwide, assessing half for music and half for visual arts.

So, what to make of all this? I plan to come back with more analysis and commentary. A quick read:

1. It's good thing that this is revealing important issues concerning quality of instruction in art and music.

2. It appears to do a disservice to the equity and access issues by giving the impression the arts are holding their own over the past 11 years. While the access may appear relatively static in the sample, without getting into great details, it's lacking the relevant and necessary context of what's transpired over the past decade. A great deal of work has taken place since 1997 to restore arts education. If you consider that after all that work, that the arts are in the same place on the basis of access, well, that's much, much worse a situation than is indicated in the report. And of course, there's plenty of missing context in terms of what students should be receiving.

And, let's remember that the report relies on what administrators report concerning what is offered to students. This is the Achilles heel of most of these reports. We do not know what the kids are actually receiving. So, for those crowing about how this proves the curriculum hasn't narrowed as a result of NCLB, they better think again.

More to come, as I haven't had a chance to really kick the tires here.

In the meantime, here's a quote to chew on:

"The 2008 arts assessment shows students do not seem to be missing out on opportunities for, and access to, arts education, as many have argued in recent years," said Darvin M. Winick, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees and sets policy for NAEP. "But we do face consistent and wide racial/ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic gaps across the subject areas."

Vote now, choose one:
Applause?
or
Cough?


Here in New York City, middle school only 46 percent of middle school students are provided with the minimum arts requirements according to New York State Law. That means that we cannot find the means to provide a total of 108 hours of arts instruction across the middle school grades for each and every student.

Missing out on "opportunities for, and access to, arts education?" Ahem, cough

The Daily News released an article today on cuts to the arts starting to appear in the New York City Public Schools.

Note the title: City Schools are Seeing Arts Programs Erased Amid Budget Cuts

For those of you who don't know this school district, basically, the principals call the shots. If they want to gut an entire arts program, they have the power, as the have been "empowered," with no practical supervision.

School budget cuts are wiping out entire departments, with art classes and programs for at-risk students disappearing fastest, the Daily News has learned.

Intermediate School 218 in East New York, Brooklyn, is losing one third of its teachers, which will mean axing its music, art and computer programs, teachers said.

"From top to bottom, the school is going to be gutted," said Chris Schilling, the school's computer teacher and basketball coach whose position has been cut, he said.

"There's no paper, no ink in the printers - we can't even make copies," he said.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 9, 2009 N-88, 2008-09

CHANCELLOR KLEIN ANNOUNCES START OF P.S. ART 2009

Student Artwork on Display at The Metropolitan Museum of Art Now through August 2

Exhibition generously supported by Bank of America and Studio in a School New York City

Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein today announced the start of P.S. Art 2009, an exhibition of artwork by New York City public school students. Now in its seventh year, and the second year of its installation at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, P.S. Art celebrates the visual arts and showcases the tremendous talent of public school students from across the City. Bank of America has generously underwritten the exhibit with a grant to The Fund for Public Schools, and Studio in a School has graciously supported the production of the exhibit. This year's exhibition includes 58 paintings, prints, sculptures, collages, and drawings created by students ages four through 19. The exhibit will be on display now through August 2, in the Ruth and Harold D. Uris Center for Education at The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

 "P.S. Art is a wonderful way for the public to get a glimpse into the outstanding arts education that's happening in our classrooms," Chancellor Klein said. "We are committed to providing every student with an outstanding arts education, and this exhibition showcases the creative and artistic talents of our students. I want to thank The Metropolitan Museum of Art for hosting this inspiring exhibition and Bank of America and Studio in a School for once again supporting this display of student work."

"Art can open doors and create connections for our incredibly diverse public school population," said Caroline Kennedy, Vice-Chair of The Fund for Public Schools. "In a city where more than 150 languages are spoken in the homes of our students, art is a universal language, giving all children an avenue for expression. I would like to congratulate the students whose fine artwork is on display and thank The Metropolitan Museum of Art for making this opportunity possible."

"Today, we are celebrating the work of some of New York City's most extraordinary young artists, displayed on the walls of one of the finest arts institutions in the world," said Kate Levin, Commissioner of the Department of Cultural Affairs. "This project is the result of intense collaboration among cultural organizations, teachers, and parents, who are working together to unlock the creative potential of our students, day-in and day-out, in schools and cultural venues across the five boroughs."

 "Bank of America believes encouraging arts education in the public schools is critical to the development of our country's future leaders," said Rena DeSisto, Global Arts and Culture Executive for Bank of America. "Our support of P.S. Art is a natural extension of our company's partnership (More) with The Fund for Public Schools and complements our ongoing support of major New York cultural institutions, including the host of this amazing exhibit, The Metropolitan Museum of Art."

"I congratulate the young artists whose work is displayed in P.S. Art 2009," said Tom Cahill, Studio in a School President and CEO. "Your work is being shared with visitors from around the world, and reminds us of the early beginnings of the great artists whose work is on view at The Met."

Visual art teachers across the City submitted more than 1,000 pieces of student artwork to be considered for the exhibition. Art educators and administrators narrowed the selection to 450 works to be judged by a jury of acclaimed artists, educators and distinguished members of the New York City arts community. The jury selected the 58 works to be included in P.S. Art 2009. These works highlight outstanding artwork from New York City's public school students and the best practices of their teachers as they relate to the Department of Education's Blueprint for Teaching and Learning in the Arts, a curriculum guide which provides educators with a standards-based, rigorous approach to teaching the arts.

###

Contact: David Cantor / Ann Forte (212) 374-5141

Well, of course. Unfortunately, that answer is not widely known or embraced among the policy elites. That's part of our job as advocates.

Middle School 223, once shuttered as one of the most violent middle schools in New York City, was reopened in 2003 as M.S. 223/The Laboratory School of Finance and Technology. Today, Principal Ramon Gonzalez says attendance is about 4 percent higher than at any middle school in the area. Meanwhile, test scores have risen from an 8 or 9 percent competency in reading and math to a whopping 65 percent of students on grade level for math and 40 percent for English language arts. And Gonzalez credits a large part of this success to the school's robust arts program.

This excerpt is part of a piece running in this month's edition of Dance Teacher Magazine.

Here is another:

"Dance is a way to get kids involved in the school," he explains. "It immediately affects attendance, and that immediately affects test scores." When the educators at M.S. 223 realized that arts classes were such a draw, they began scheduling them on days when attendance was typically low. This led to a wholesale change in philosophy. "Before, we saw [arts and academics] as mutually exclusive, and now we see things differently," says Gonzalez.

In a time where the curriculum is being narrowed, here is one principal doing the exact opposite: he takes away from test prep to schedule the arts.

N.B. Full disclosure, both of the schools in this article are partners with CAE...

I have a four-year-old daughter, Sophie. Last July, one of my very first blog entries, Daddy Don't You Have Some Baby Music?,  was about how she had already developed her own personality, taste, and requisite ability to discern styles of music. That entry is in my archives.

Okay, so last week, juggling family obligations, I had to take a day off from work to watch Sophie. Towards the afternoon, as I was starting to enervate, she asked me if she could paint at her easel. She's got one of these swell plastic easels, with lots of space to store paint, brushes, her smock, paper, etc.

So I move the easel to the kitchen, where I've put down a big plastic sheet; tear off a nice big piece of paper; load the paint colors Sophie requested into her little paint containers; and, off she goes.

I watched. And watched. And watched. It was fascinating.

Sophie was focused, deliberate, and in her own way, an age-appropriate way, masterful. She did two paintings, we let them dry, and she began to think about when we would show them to her Mommy. Also, we spent some time talking about how she would sign the paintings.

"Masterful," you may ask? Really, yes, it was. Fair enough, yes, I am a proud parent, but seeing is believing.

What I mean by masterful was not necessarily in the artistic quality of the work--that was besides the point. I mean, she's a four-year-old. It was in the agency exhibited. It was in the executive function exhibited.

Clearly a very organized but creative world had been established, that was all Sophie. I didn't direct her at all.

I was once at a conference where someone asked the question of what we were doing to identify and support those truly special children, meaning the girl or boy Mozart.

I replied that I thought all children were special and that all children had talents and it was our job to encourage and provide opportunities to learn and grow throughout their public education, at least

Is Sophie the next Picasso? Not very likely. But, did what we provide for her with that easel, materials, encouragement, etc., help her find her footing, help her become a little mensch? I have no doubt. Did that easel and the little world she had established through it, open a pathway to agency as human being and increased executive function? I have no doubt. And, while I don't have a study to prove it, I know it when I see it.

You have heard a lot about how the US cannot compete with other countries when it comes to K-12 education. We're behind in the key barometers, essentially meaning test scores in reading and math, which has helped fuel a mini-back-to-basics movement narrowing the curriculum.

Moreover, high stakes have driven this narrowing. Look at NCLB. Look at the School Progress Report in NYC. Hit your scores and get a bonus or we "will fire your asses," as a school district superintendent famously told his principals a few years ago.

Question: So, what is it that we're doing wrong, that the other countries are doing right?

Common Core has released a report: Why We're Behind, What Top Nations Teach Their Students but We Don't.

"Each of the nations that consistently outrank the United States on the PISA exam provides their students with a comprehensive, content-rich education in the liberal arts and sciences. These nations differ greatly with regard to how they accomplish this goal. Some have a national curriculum and standards but no tests, others have both, and some leave everything up to the states. Interestingly, no state-based nation in our sample currently has a national curriculum or standards, though one is attempting to develop some."

"So what is the common ingredient across these varied nations? It is not a delivery mechanism or an accountability system that these high-performing nations share: it is a dedication to educating their children deeply in a wide range of subjects."

"These nations' dedication to providing their students with a content-rich education may be their only commonality. After all, these high-performing nations are scattered across four continents. None shares a border with the others. Three are republics, three parliamentary democracies, two constitutional monarchies, and one the territory of a communist state. They range in population from 4 million (New Zealand) to over 125 million (Japan). The group boasts at least 14 official languages."

Answer: A commitment to a well-rounded education, that includes the arts.

I hope that you will give this a read, and some good thought too.