Dewey21C

Is untranscribable a word? Let me check...Ah, apparently, it is!

Every now and then a group of musicians decide to transcribe and perform something that makes everyone who knows the particular piece or pieces at hand scratch their heads.

The first time I encountered this was when I heard a performance of a few of Conlon Nancarrow's pieces composed for player piano. You know, the piano that plays itself using  a form of musical notation that is punched or perforated onto a paper roll.

Nancarrow's pieces for this instrument are just terrific, and when transcribed for living musicians in chamber ensemble formation, become blisteringly difficult. That first time and for quite a few times afterward, hearing chamber ensembles perform those works was painful. It brings to mind a phrase one of my trombone teachers, Gil Cohen, formerly of the NY Philharmonic used to use upon special occasion: "it swung like a rusty toilet seat."

Lots of folks would say: "great idea in principle, but it doesn't really work."

Well, the continued development in technical skills of concert musicians has gotten us to the point where you can go hear a pretty damn good performance of those Nancarrow transcriptions.

So, I open the paper today and lo and behold, the Fireworks Ensemble performs their transcription of Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music.

A piece that is a virtuosic gem of guitar feedback is transcribed for a chamber ensemble. Metal Music Machine is a brilliant experimental work that connects the dots between Lou Reed and a host of experimental composers including Tony Conrad and LaMonte Young, the later of which is considered by many to be one of the fathers of minimalism.

Great, I mean brilliant idea! Did it really work? Check out Jon Pareles's review in the New York Times. Here's a particularly lovely excerpt from his review:

The music was still unremitting; there were a few walkouts. It was also electrifying, a perceptual overload, with notes fluttering at points all over the frequency spectrum and tiny inner parts peeking out. The transcribed "Metal Machine Music" no longer reflects its title. Now it's more string than metal, and it's flesh rather than machine. It's a world away from the original in both execution and intent; it's social rather than solitary, respectful rather than irritating. But in its own much more formal way, it's just as maniacal.

This is a another wonderful example of the shape-shifting nature of music in the 21st century. From a iconic shape-shifter of a piece by one of the most influential rock artists of the 20th century, to a group of young classical players who take the work and make it their own on stage in a live performance. What is it? Classical? Experimental? Chamber? Rock? Whatever you choose, it's pretty damn swell.

I've been sitting on the idea for this entry since October. I thought the slow news day today for education would be a good time to post. That's a joke, of course, have you seen the report about school districts that have burned through their stimulus funding?

Ever go to an arts education conference? Ever go to an arts conference? Let's say American for the Arts, National Performing Arts Convention, APAP, TCG, AEP, etc.

Well, for a study in contrast, take a good look at this summit from last fall. It's not just the high-profile participants, but the way the agenda is written to look like it came out of West Point.

And the arts field is leery of advocacy!

Here are a few choice examples, pun intended:

Winning the International Education Arms Race: A Conversation with Jeb Bush

Allies in the International Education Arms Race

The War on Charter Schools: Combating the Emerging Threats to Public School Choice

The objective of the Excellence in Action initiatives is to provide a roadmap for education reform for local, state and federal leaders across the nation, creating a one-stop-shop to arm policymakers with the tools and knowledge to achieve successful, battle-tested reform.

In what may just be the most competitive grant applications process ever, the USDOE has announced a call for peer reviewers for its $650 million Investing in Innovation Fund (i3). 

i3: The purpose of the program is to provide competitive grants to applicants with a record of improving student achievement, in order to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on improving student achievement or student growth for high-need students, as well as to promote school readiness, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase high school graduation rates, and improve teacher and school leader effectiveness.

These grants will (1) allow eligible entities to expand and develop their work so that their work can serve as models of best practices, (2) allow eligible entities to work in partnership with the private sector and the philanthropic community, and (3) identify and document best practices that can be shared and taken to scale based on demonstrated success.

WHO:  We are seeking peer reviewers from various backgrounds and professions including: PK-12 teachers and principals, college and university educators, researchers and evaluators, social entrepreneurs, strategy consultants, grant makers and managers, and others with education expertise. The selected reviewers should have expertise in at least one of the following areas: education reform and policy, evidence, innovation, strategy, and application review as defined below.

I was talking recently with a friend and colleague who expressed disappointment over how things turned out with the appointment of the arts education czar in her local school district.

She spoke about how much effort went into advocating with district leadership for the creation of the position, how enormously high the hopes were for success, and how different the relationship between the czar and the arts education community ended up being from what was initially envisioned.

I was once part of creating such a position. In 1994, as part of the planning team that helped created The Center for Arts Education, I personally negotiated the creation of the district arts supervisor position with the then Deputy Chancellor, Judith Rizzo. It was the first senior position for the arts in the New York City public school district in many years. In addition, I negotiated the first dedicated arts line in many years from the New York City public schools.

In the end, while being extremely important, the position, whether is be District Arts Supervisor, District Arts Coordinator, Executive Director of the Arts Department, or arts education czar, is a nothing more than a piece of a larger puzzle.

Here are a few additional thoughts:

1. Having someone within the district that is responsible for arts education is important, but should not mean that the superintendent and school board are left unengaged by the arts education community. This position should not become a gatekeeper nor proxy for the most high level policy makers within a school district.

 

2. The position is somewhat paradoxical. Unless and until a school district provides adequate staffing to support quality arts learning from within (through certified arts teachers, etc.), providing arts education is thus partially dependent on the arts community to provide instruction, funding, supplies, experiences, etc. Therefore, what is really required of these arts supervisors/czars is to be a good partner with those outside of the school district; to be an fierce advocate within the district for the arts; and to ultimately share some of the authority for what they are held responsible for. Should I repeat that?. Got it? I know, it's radical.

In other words this position should embody the public-private partnership. For those working to establish such a position, they should advocate for it to be crafted as such by the superintendent and school board.  In particular, this is what funders should insist upon in return for their help in making these positions possible. And yes, such a job description would be a very progressive step for any school district.

 

3. Simply having this position in place should not be cause to cease advocacy efforts, but should be precisely the opposite. Advocacy efforts should be expanded, and as much as possible be in partnership with this position/district, but not beholden to it.

 

4. The arts education community should be prepared to and feel comfortable in disagreeing with the position of the arts education czar. Sometimes the czar is called upon to deliver news and implement policies they do not support, and it is critical to remember that what is best for the children must come first.

5. Remember, that unless the position is structured as in the highly unlikely way referenced in the above, the district supervisor/czar works for the superintendent and will do what they are told or have to catch a bus with a one way ticket. Problems arise when people become confused about this.

The arts education czar is indeed an important part of the puzzle, but should not be cause for allowing community efforts to dwindle.

My three cents...

As most of you know, the NEA, in this case the National Endowment for the Arts, not the National Education Association (for my education readers), has a new tag line: Arts Works.

Today, the NEA has released an RFP for the creation of a new logo to illuminate the new tag line. The deadline is February 26th, so you have to act fast!

While visiting with senior students in a graphic design class at DASH, the Chairman announced the RFP that invites proposals for a new "Art Works" logo for the NEA. The proposed logos should incorporate all three of the meanings of "Art Works" and tie them to the NEA in such a way that the proposed logo might be used alone or in conjunction with the NEA's current logo.

 

Chairman Landesman said, "Those two words - "art works" - pretty much sum up everything we are about at the NEA, and I hope you will see them everywhere. Art, artists, and arts professionals work to change the communities they inhabit: they are placemakers and help create livable, sustainable, complete communities. I look forward to having a logo that conveys that."

Here's the press release, (will require you to enlarge the image a bit), with links:

Artworks Logo RFP Here's the RFP: Artworks Design

Oops, I did it again. NCLB is out! We're talking about the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

A front page piece appeared in today's Times about where ESEA is headed. Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), the engine of NCLB, appears to be heading for the hills, to be replaced by a broader measurement of progress, and a focus on "college and career readiness."

The college and readiness piece is an interesting one, and would certainly be a major advance for ESEA. We've been hearing for quite some time now the concerns in higher education over those who graduate high school, "hit the numbers," but are clearly unprepared for college. Ditto for career and technical education. This state of unpreparedness is not only connected to performance on standardized tests, but brings into consideration a much wider range of issues most believe are related to a well-rounded education, that includes the arts.

This would be a great time to think about what a broader, more balanced education should look like and to that end, I suggest you take a look at this report, released last June by Common Core: Why We're Behind: What Top Nations Teach Their Students But We Don't.

I blogged on this report last year, but wonder how many took the time to give it a read. In many respects, its the best argument I've encountered in a long time for arts education and a well-rounded education, and not only connects to where ESEA is headed, but should help get those who wring hands about our educational shortcomings compared to other nations thinking a bit more broadly.

The American Teacher is the bi-monthly magazine published by the American Federation of Teachers.

The February edition has a cover story on arts education in the United States. And it's quite a swell cover!

Click here to read it.

For some reason, there is this underlying element in the arts that makes you feel you have to justify what you're doing, says Karla Back, who teaches choral music and music history at St. James High School in St. James, Minn.

It's high time that arts classes are considered to be core subjects. No more designation as "frills!" Corinne McVee, Anchorage (Alaska) Council of Education

Sometimes people lose track of what mayoral control means, particularly the pure form that we have in New York City. In New York City, it means that the mayor controls the schools and can do whatever he wants, for he appoints the majority of the the local school board (the Panel for Educational Policy) and can remove his appointees at anytime for any reason whatsoever.

The vote by the PEP, the "fake school board," as some call it, was the best animation of mayoral control that we've seen in a long time.

For those of you who live in another city, and are thinking, well, that's New York, so who cares--you should know that more and more mayors, mayoral candidates, and civic leaders are pushing for this brand of school governance. What is more, Joel Klein and Michael Bloomberg have put a great amount of effort into marketing and promoting it across the world (yes world, no exaggeration).

Was this morning's vote approving the closure of 19 schools a surprise? No, not really. I do think that many people following this issue began to think that the sizable number of people defending these schools, including teachers, administrators, parents, and students, might persuade the PEP to act in a way that was at odds with its governance structure. In other words: vote against the wishes of the mayor and chancellor. No dice.

So, beyond the drama and there was plenty of it, including lots of broken hearts, what's new or interesting to consider?

1. The scale and intensity of the people protesting the closures. In any other city, with a real school board, you can be pretty sure this would have led to a different decision. This bodes well for the role of an engaged public in public education going forward. Click here to read a rather good Daily News article on this subject.

2. The coverage of the debate by new media, in particular by gothamschools.org was quite remarkable. Take a look at their play-by-play coverage of yesterday's PEP meeting, lasting until the wee hours of the morning. Additionally, the coverage by Norm Scott was notable, in particular his video coverage of the hearings and rallies.

3. After all the Sturm and Drang, the statement by the schools chancellor speaking about the NYCDOE's "remarkable success" was just the wrong note to hit and speaks volumes on a symbolic level:

"The vote today will pave the way for us to build on the remarkable progress we've made and continue to best prepare students for the next phase of their lives."

4. What's up next for the remaining comprehensive high schools that do not perform on the same level as Stuyvesant, Brooklyn Tech, Murrow, Midwood, etc?  Will the stated preference for small high schools lead to further closings and conversions?

5. Will this be the door opener for significant growth in charter high schools, provided that the charter cap is eventually increased?

6. As a Rockaway native, I wonder what will happen now, with the closure of the two comprehensive high schools on the Peninsula. Will enough seats be created for local kids to go to a local high school, or will kids, in some cases poor kids who have to work, now have to travel two to three hours each day for school, and thus be forced to make a choice between school and work?

7. What will happen to all the teachers from these 19 schools? Will they find jobs or flood the ATR pool?

8. And finally, because this is an arts education blog after all, will the conversion of these buildings continue to hamper efforts to provide arts education through the loss of dedicated and appropriate arts education space, as well as the loss of access to certified arts teachers?

I first started wondering about the viability and rationality of the non-profit field when I ran the American Music Center. (Actually, I started thinking about it when I was at Juilliard, and began to realize just how many trombonists were being graduated from music schools across the United States, into a distinctly smaller job market to say the least.)

I started at the AMC in 1997 and soon afterward began to notice what appeared to be an irrational growth in the number of non-profit arts organizations. It led to me my wise-crack that every time two composers had lunch, a new non-profit was created. It was an obscure take-off on the line from It's a Wonderful Life: "Every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings."




Running one of the older organizations in the United States (a national service organization established in 1939), I was keenly aware of the competition for support for already existing organizations versus support for new enterprises. This issue becomes eves more pronounced when it involves the creation of programmatic and institutional redundancies. I often rationalized that particular concern away by focusing on the immense need that could not be met by established resources.

Of course there's the other side of the coin to the issue of need: limited funding. So yes, while it was true that there is much more need than the constellation of organizations supporting that particular field, in this instance new music, could adequately address, expanding the field of organizations without thinking about sustainable capacities is problematic, to say the least--thus my questions about rationality.

So, what did I see occurring, exactly? Well, an expansion from an established group of organizations supporting composers and performers, as was the case with the AMC or say, Meet The Composer, or the American Composers Forum, to the creation of new organizations that would do it all better, but without real thought as to the ecology of the field. Newer, better, sexier, etc. Sometimes the project would be established through a foundation-supported-research initiative. While the organizations being created were to support artists in other disciplines, in addition to music, there was to be significant overlap.

In one of those instances I remember talking to a consultant who told me that they had just interviewed thousands of artists in America, and their research led to the conclusion that a new organization should be created.

I had quite a laugh, for anyone who works with individual artists knows that's the very last thing they would ever say. They want the money, and often call into question the resources that go into such organizations. It is understandable, after all.

But yes, this new organization, which wouldn't make all the mistakes the others had, was indeed created.

A cycle ended up being established: a new organization comes along supporting individual artists, including composers and musical performers, then another comes along, and then, yes, still another.

The theory behind all this was that more organizations would bring in more money to the field. And, the nuanced differences among the organizations would obviate issues of redundancies.

Did it work that way? Perhaps in the early years, when some special grants were made to get the new organization up and running. Eventually though, it's the same pot of of money, and I don't believe you end up with added capacity for the field that is so often touted. I tend to see a destabilizing effect.

Interestingly, I think that it is this very same approach that makes it so hard to merge organizations to create greater economies of scale.

What would I have preferred?

I would have preferred a siding towards supporting what already exists, while helping it to do more, better

With an expanding economy comes the lack of any real, hard, cold assessment as to whether the new venture is sustainable, and how it might help or hurt existing organizations that have significant overlap in mission and function.

It's a bit of the often unrecognized cowboy mentality in the wild west of non-profits.

That brings me to "The Great Recession," which appears to be in the process of creating the most significant course correction ever in this field.

No kidding, you may be thinking...

I thought the correction would occur in 2001. I am sure there were those who thought it would have happened in 1987. Particularly in New York, after the events of 9/11, it was a tough road to hoe for many organizations. I was still at the AMC and we administered an almost $4 million fund to support musical organizations and individual artists that had suffered losses as a result of the events of 9/11.

At that time, we poured over the books of all the organizations applying for grants, looking for which organizations looked to be particularly problematic. What I saw led me to believe that I  many organizations would go under. But, short-term money was granted to help bolster the field, and the economy recovered, at least we thought it did. Some of the money, notably emergency grants made on an anonymous basis by Mayor Michael Bloomberg became new sustained lines of funding.

Is the course correction occurring today? (Isn't course correction a lame way to describe it?) Are we on the verge of a thinning of this sector's herd, with perhaps a significant change in outlook for those thinking of starting new organizations, not to mention the broader effects of such a change on jobs and lives?

It's funny, for I don't worry so much for artists as I do for arts administrators. Generally speaking, most artists always have it tough, so what else is new?

Andrew Taylor had an interesting little blog on all this, essentially describing things as being "broken."

Barry's Blog had an interesting piece on the trend towards "visioning conferences."

This week on AJ, there's an online dialogue on the value of heritage and artistic engagement in a world where how we use culture is rapidly changing.

Neill Archer Roan, on his blog this week asks if the arts have anything more to say beyond "we're important."

In essence, what we're experiencing is the one-two punch of rapid change in culture, technology, and more, combined with the great change in economy that has gotten lots people noticing, big-time.

The rapid change, well, I think the change has been there for quite some time. Is it increasing in complexity and/or speed? Perhaps. But I am sure the folks worried about the future of vaudeville thought very much the same thing.

I saw lots of powerful change taking place when I was at the AMC: the music publishers  implode; watching the music recording business decline; watching the challenges to artists making their way in the world grow exponentially; watching the purported divide between commercial and non profit begin to melt away.

At CAE, where I am today, the change has been faster and more complex than anything I have ever seen before. Much of this is regionally based, as the pace of change and upheaval at the New York City Department of Education is unique. That being said, what's going on in K-12 education in New York, is making its way to most other urban school systems, not to mention some suburban and rural. It makes what's happening in the music industry look like child's play.

So, the change has been around us, all of the time.

I would argue (albeit an easy argument), that it's the financial calculus that is most important right now. It's pretty simple: there is only so much money that can go to support so many organizations and individuals.

It's not to say that we're alone in this, because we aren't. This is happening to so many sectors of the economy: the supply of money and how it effects so very, very much.

The non-profit world has its own version of a free market, and many believe we should just let the market sort itself out. Let the thinning occur and then when things turn around, the organizations left standing will move forward.

And, then, when the economy grows again, will it be just like before, a wild west of growth in new organizations, devoid of context related to the overall fabric of the sector and the various submarkets/disciplines?

Of course, that begs the question of what could be done differently? I would argue that the IRS and state attorneys general need to rethink the entire process that grants non-profit/charitable status. Perhaps there should be some sort of impact statement required, one that looks at the impact to other organizations and potential overlap/redundancies?

A sort of non-profit environmental impact statement

Perhaps there should be something more required that would push the organizations to address the question of sustainability, such as a a list of individual pledging specific dollar and time commitments for a fixed period of time?

Perhaps there should be some sort of cap on the number of non-profits allowed to start in any given year?

I know, most everyone is going to hate these ideas. I am not completely wild about them myself, but throw them out there for the hell of it.

Perhaps it's a good time to rethink some of the underpinnings of the non-profit arts and arts education field, rather than simply allowing for a completely unfettered market, save the most minimal requirements by the IRS and state governments.

Okay, we're not using the name NCLB anymore, and you might think this is a bait and switch, but if I used its formal name, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), you might not know what this blog is all about.

A couple of weeks ago I blogged about an invitation that was extended to arts education leaders across the nation to meet with the USDOE about ways in which arts education could be supported in the reauthorization of what was formerly know as NCLB.

If you want to know more about the history of ESEA, click here.

Essentially, ESEA is a program dating back to the Johnson-era that has focused on children in need. ESEA was and still is intended to level the playing field for kids from low socioeconomic environments. Unfortunately, that fact is often lost on people.

Okay, I promised to report back and that's what I am doing today.

The meeting took place in the auditorium at the USDOE, and the turnout by USDOE leadership and staff was very, very impressive. In particular, there was Carmel Martin, Assistant Secretary for Planning, Evaluation, and Policy, and James Shelton III, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation.  In total, there must have been about 20 staff members there from the USDOE, including those well known to the arts field like Doug Herbert. The staff could not have been friendlier. I got there early and was greeted by Edith Harvey, Director of Improvement Programs. The USDOE staff went out of its way to offer a friendly hello.

Most of the attendees from the arts education field came from DC-based organizations, including Arts Education Partnership, The League of American Orchestras, DanceUSA, Opera America, MENC, VSA Arts, The Kennedy Center, NAEA, Americans for the Arts, and others.

Additionally, there were representatives from some state departments of education, including Connecticut and New Jersey, The Cleveland Public School District, and from VH1 Save the Music Foundation, NAMM, The Guild of Community Schools of the Arts, and other individuals like my friend and colleague Carol Fineberg.

Perhaps the most interesting and unusual attendee was David Sherman from the American Federation of Teachers. A lot of heads turned when he began his remarks, for it is very unusual for either the AFT or the NEA (National Education Association) to attend an arts focused meeting such as this. The presence of one of the two national teacher unions gave expanded reach and representation to this meeting in a rather extraordinary way.

Finally, there were various congressional staff members, as well as everyone's favorite program director, Sarah Cunningham, from the National Endowment for the Arts (the other NEA!).

The format of the meeting was simple: some opening remarks by Shelton and Martin, and then on to prepared statements from about a dozen or so members of the audience. Take note: Shelton and Martin are key officials at the USDOE. Their presence sent the right signal.

In essence, the USDOE officials stated up front that the Arne Duncan is a strong supporter of arts education, as evidenced by numerous public statements, and that they wanted to hear from the arts education community about ways in which the reauthorization of ESEA could help support arts education. They spoke a bit about the concerns of the narrowing of the curriculum, and the fact that some districts did not understand all the ways in which ESEA funding, in particular Title I could be used to support arts education. Then they opened up the meeting to comments from the arts education field.

At this point, the most important thing about this meeting is that the USDOE officials were listening carefully and taking copious notes, in addition to recording the proceeding. I have been to many similar meetings, with school district officials, where the level of serious attention was often lacking. I have been to meetings like this where the senior district official was on his Blackberry for much of the time!

This was different. It was impressive and heartening.

Additionally, they asked that more detailed comments be provided by email, of a more instructive nature, so they "could know exactly what to do."

As to the comments from the audience, there was a wide range of messages, from the typical "arts are important" flag waving variety, to extremely detailed comments on legislative language.

I thought the best comments of the day came from Scott Schuler, who is arts education specialist at the Connecticut State Department of Education, and David Sherman, of the American Federation of Teachers.

Sherman, for whom I must disclose is on The Center for Arts Education's Board of Directors, really helped provide the context for what ESEA means and how it must ultimately be put to best use as an engine of equity, in this instance equity related to access to high quality arts education. It doesn't hurt that his union represents more than one million members.

Finally, I thought that Narric Rome, from Americans for the Arts gave a very thoughtful and candid presentation that did not shy away from pointing out the lost opportunity and disappointment many people feel about Race to the Top. Ultimately, he was asking that this not happen again with ESEA. It was an interesting moment, for it's always a tough call as to whether or not you want to offer any public criticism. Government officials can be touchy about some things. That being said, I thought that Rome offered some very candid comments on RttT, and that the USDOE officials took it at face value, rather than getting defensive.

Bravo all around.

For those that have come to view my posts as being more skeptical than optimistic, you might be surprised by my rather chipper report. Well, I am somewhat  surprised myself!

So, a good meeting was had, one that hopefully will open the door to real progress in the vitally important ESEA. Will I be surprised if the arts end up with the short end of the stick? No, I won't. But, I remain much more hopeful as a result of this good meeting. Shuler Testimony USDOE Arts Stakeholders Mtg 1-20-10

Here is my testimony:
1.10 ESEA Remarks Final

It makes for a really great chest-beating sound-bite: "we just closed another low performing school!"

It's all the rage in New York City, at the USDOE, and at many other urban school districts: School Turnaround. And, although the term denotes a number of possible strategies, it almost always connotes the closing of a school. And, you may ask what happens to the building after closure? Very often the building is given over to a charter school. Naturally, this ends up being a factor behind the closing of these schools and the question of who subsequently gets to occupy the school property.

I've been reading about Beach Channel High School, as it's one of 20 schools slated for shuttering by the NYCDOE. As I was reading about how it would be "phased-out," I recalled the fact that I was there for the phase-in, as I was in the very first class of students when it opened in September of 1973. And it was indeed a phase-in, as when my class entered in the 10th grade, coming from a 7-9 Junior High School, there were no upper classes. The phase-in occurred over three years, until there was a 12th grade class. 

In 1971, the excitement over this new high school in The Rockaways was everywhere. It was to be built on Jamaica Bay, offering one of the most glorious views of the Manhattan skyline, looking out across the bird sanctuaries. There would be a crew team, a weather station, a scuba diving training tank, an oceanographic laboratory, a Marine Biology Regents exam (unique to the school), and more.

Here's a small excerpt from a New York Times article on the planning of BCHS in 1971:

The New York Times. March 7, 1971

SCHOOL IN QUEENS WILL STUDY OCEAN

New Complex Will Be First in City to Offer Course

The water of Jamaica Bay will be an integral part of the learning process at the $20-million Beach Channel High School now under construction in Rockaway Beach, Queens.

The school will be the first in the city system to offer a section devoted to oceanographic instruction and when construction is complete late in 1973, passing motorists can expect to see students dressed in scuba gear diving into the adjacent bay and other students sailing in the marshes in the bay to collect specimens for study.

The courses that will be offered at Beach Channel High School are not designed for only the brightest students. "There are several practical applications for the knowledge we hope students will gain," said Maxwell Cohen, developer of the oceanographic plan for the new school. "For example, we have found that many students in the Rockaways are members of fishing families. One of our hopes is to offer instruction in the modern aspects of scientific fishing, thereby raising the industry's local economy," Mr. Cohen said. Another goal of the oceanographic instruction will be to make students aware of their surroundings. "A student who goes to school in Rockaway must see either the ocean or the bay every day of his life.

Or from a NYT piece shortly after BCHS opened in 1973, an interview with the first BCHS principal, Robert Rappaport:

"We've integrated marine studies in all areas of the curriculum, but that doesn't' mean we're a vocational school," the husky 47-year-old Mr. Rappaport said, "far from it; we're a comprehensive high school."

"We're not replacing languages, literature, the arts, the sciences, we're enriching them. During the first week we had biology classes collecting plankton from the bay. What we're trying to do is get kids excited about school."

And so, math students learning about graphs may end up plotting curves that relate water temperature to salinity; ninth-graders studying a foreign language--as all of them must do, selecting from courses of varying difficulty--will compile word lists from around the sea theme; chemistry and biology students will focus on the composition and life of the sea."

Granted, it was a time when the graduation rate was a non-issue and the term achievement gap had yet to be coined.  A friend tells me the story of asking the then schools chancellor a question about graduation rates. His reply was essentially: "who cares..." BCHS opened its doors right into the biggest layoffs in the history of the school system, when 15,000 teachers were fired in 1975-76.

I remember the school well. There was a terrific faculty of teachers, including a full complement of arts teachers, as well as physical education. It was a truly comprehensive high school, in that it offered a wide range of subjects and activities, including foreign languages, advanced physics, history, social studies, and more.

BCHS was a reflection of  The Rockaways, which was mostly a mix of middle class and poor. Was it idyllic? No. BCHS had its share of troubled kids, but all in all, it was a great high school.

As for the arts, knowing what I know today, I would put BCHS at that time up against any high school in the country today, public or private. Band, chorus, music theory, chamber music at the music teachers house on Saturday morning. A powerful visual arts program led by Renee Darvin, who went on to oversee art for the NYCDOE, and who today teaches art teachers at Teachers College. An equally powerful music program led by an accomplished musician: Jack Nowinski, who also happened to be my first trombone teacher.

Oddly enough, my connection to BCHS is stronger today than it's been in many years. Through Facebook, I've reconnected with high school friends. Through my work at CAE, I've reconnected with Renee Darvin. A CAE board member, Art Greenberg, was once principal of BCHS. Through advocacy work, I've been in touch with other BCHS alums and Norm Scott, a former teacher and education activist who is helping to give voice to the issue of school closings.

I've heard what the school chancellor has had to say about schools that have closed or been slated to close. The gist of it is that those fighting for the survival of these schools "aren't doing right by the kids."

As a matter of policy, I remain concerned over the loss of the comprehensive high school, as I believe that pound for pound a good comprehensive high school with its broad array of resources and programs is preferable to a small high school. At the very least there should be a reasonable level of choice.

The policy makers preference in the area of comprehensive high school versus small high school has followed patterns where one is favored over the other, then there's a flip flop. It's hard to imagine that the zeitgeist will not be reversed, giving way to a push for small schools to be converted to comprehensive high schools once again in the near future. The churn will continue. An illumination of this can be seen in The Gates Foundation decision to step away from funding such work after $2 billion. While Gates walking away from this hasn't yet led to a movement to build comprehensive high schools, it has certainly taken the steam out of the current rage for small high schools. Follow the money. A school district friend once told me that money is policy.

Back the BCHS. I believe that what has not been made clear in the debate about its closing, is the extent to which the 20 schools on the NYCDOE's hit list have or have not been supported in efforts to improve. By most accounts, these schools have not been given great support. The feeling from within the schools is that they have improved, without much help from the school district. but in the end, it's more about politics than sound education decision-making. What is more, it is widely known that many of the non-elite large high schools have been dumping grounds for all the kids that could not get into smaller screened school, essentially loading the deck in favor of the failure.

Click here to read an interesting article on BCHS and this issue, from The New York Times.

BCHS and other schools are asking for another chance, one that would be supported by significant support services. There are many who ask that these schools be given the levels of support provided the new small high schools as they are being planned and opened. Ditto for the new charter schools.

Click here to read last year's Quality Review for BCHS. It will make you wonder where the connection is between this review, a major part of the NYCDOE's Accountability Initiative, and the closing of the school.

When I first heard about BCHS being slated for closure, I felt a terrible pain of sadness. To be honest, I was surprised by the feeling. The best way of describing it is a feeling that your past is being erased.

Moreover, as someone who had "sand in his shoes," meaning that I grew up at the beach, Rockaway Beach, I wondered how it could be possible to close the only two high schools on that isolated Peninsula. We used to call it the "insular Peninsula." And, it is indeed that. There's not much going on in The Rockaways, and you have to feel for the kids who would now have to travel quite far to find a high school nearby, as in 45 minutes to an hour each way. You see, the only other high school in Rockaway, Far Rockaway High School, stopped accepting new students in 2008 as part of its planned closure.

For elementary or middle school, travel is certainly an issue, but no where near the issue it is at the high school level. With many poor kids in The Rockaways, who must work after school, the travel time will force some harsh decisions regarding school versus work. I hate to think that the kids will drop out of high school because they have to work and cannot afford the travel time required to the nearest high school.

Today, we are witnessing the biggest public fight yet over the slated closing of any schools, including a planned protest at Mayor Michael Bloomberg's home in Manhattan. That may be a first. With a school board controlled by the Mayor, it's hard to imagine that the protests will have much impact. Still, you never know.

So, what do I hope for? I hope the fight builds and that another shot is given most if not all of these schools. And, the shot must be a real one, fully supported by the types of resources that go into the creation of new small high schools and charter schools. This would be of particular importance for Beach Channel High School, for the sake of the kids on that isolated, insular Peninsula, where the issues these kids face are most likely misunderstood by the school district.

I once had a colleague complain to me about the disparities in quality among those organizations providing services to schools. Some programs were great; others were terrible. Some artists where thoughtfully developed and supported to work in schools; others were simply booked into the gig. Some organizations spent a great deal of time on reflective practice; others did nothing. You get the point.

My colleague suggested that something should be done to establish and enforce quality. In essence he was talking about the creation of some sort of oversight organization.

Centrally, the discussion was about in-school partnership programs between schools and arts education programs/organizations, rather than youth concerts at a symphony or a visit to an art exhibition by students and teachers.

And, to be even more specific, I believe the biggest concern here was focused on the work of the teaching artist, because the teaching artist tends to be the key point for delivery of such programs and services.

So, what was my response to the idea? I posited that quality is to a large degree something that the marketplace should determine. If schools (the marketplace) know what they want and need from a provider, then the organizations would adapt to the demands of the marketplace. What is more, I said that the issue of quality was ultimately the responsibility of the schools and school system. Focus should be turned towards building such capacities for school leaders, teachers, and parents throughout the system. The rest would follow.

The work should be about the needs of kids, and the fundamental context for such needs should be established by the schools. When a school community has a vision for arts education, has established goals, and a strong understanding of what it wants and needs for its students, teachers, etc., then the work can really take off.

Some simple examples of this are knowing what you want and need in a teaching artist. When a school develops a simple job description, present it to the organization, and goes to the next step of interviewing prospective teaching artists, the likelihood of success is much greater than when organizations and teaching artists are left to probe in order to try and determine the unstated goals of the school.

I spent a number of years as a teaching artist in schools that were not exactly sure what they wanted and needed, preferring to leave it to the teaching artist to develop. It's not a great way to go about this work.

If we can find ways through policy and practice to strengthen the capacity of administrators, teachers, and parents to develop a strong, achievable vision for arts in their respective schools, so much of what ails this field would melt away. Of course it is not an easy task, considering the lack of arts knowledge for most school leaders and non-arts teachers.

Nevertheless, we need to do a better job in addressing this issue with higher education, with state boards of education, with teacher and administrator unions, and of course, the school districts to establish that sweet spot in as many school communities as possible. The beautiful thing, is that the establishment of such a vision and the capacity to make it happen in the arts, is something that can and should be applied across all domains. It's a win-win situation across the board.