Jane Remer, Guest Blogger: The Arts Just Don't Fit in Most of our Schools

Hmm, I wonder how Einstein would respond to this. (Need I remind you, Jane, of my fixation with his simple reasoning when it comes to complex problems.) Maybe he would remind us that "we can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them" or that "reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." But I would venture to guess that he would encourage us to consider that regardless of the endless obstacles we face, "the important thing is not to stop questioning."

Thanks for keeping the questions coming.

For an example of a public elementary school fully immersed in arts education and consistently rated "exceptional" by state standards, visit:

http://www.portlandcm.org/opal_school.php

more stories can be found on my blog

The over all point made by my old friend Jane Remer is sadly true. Over the decades many of us have continuously heralded the value of the arts and made little head way in convincing "the system" that the arts are essential both in the development of humane individuals as well as to learning. Regardless, most of us lucky enough to have engaged in the arts know that the they teach important skills useful in themselves and beyond, however little this is understood by others.

In fact, many studies provide windows into what that learning is, including the recent one she mentions by Hetland and Winner, even if they do not prove more than co-relationships or simple likelihoods. Few other aspects of the curriculum have been forced to justify their existence, and the fact that under funded, often sidelined but zealous art educators have undertaken studies should be celebrated. That they aren't conclusive, and that what they say isn't taken seriously, shouldn't stop us from arguing the point of the arts' importance to schooling.

I would also like to call Jane's attention to Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) which has all the hallmarks she wants in an arts program. VTS is finding its way into schools across the country because teachers love the way it brings visual art into ongoing classroom practice and because it has direct, documented impact on language development and thinking that transfers to other domains. Teachers see it again and again with their own students. An article that describes VTS and its multiple uses can be found in Eduopia: http://www.edutopia.org/visual-thinking-strategies-art-curriculum

I was fortunate to be introduced to Karen Calhoun and this program at the Morrion Elementary School in Norwalk CA [just south of Los Angeles]. They are developing a program that uses arts education to teach students important skills that give them a foundation for their education, not just arts ed.

I was impressed with their approach, their pedagogy and their documentation. The school has posted part of the information online. I thought there might be others that would be interested in this type of approach.

http://www.nlmusd.k12.ca.us/apps/news/show_news.jsp?REC_ID=94734&id=0&rn=4148375

Bless Jane Remer for saying out loud the things that I suspect many of us involved in the arts and arts education and arts-in-education wonder. What a relief it might be to just relieve schools of the burden of trying to make arts education fit along with meeting a slew of unfunded government mandates, and what a relief it might be for those of us who keep trying to make it happen in a school or a district, who after some success find things all going away because of the next round of budget cuts or a change in administration. So what is the venue for making arts experiences universally available as the public schools historically have done? What are the new, creative, workable, accessible models?

As far as economic benefit of the arts argument, there is some truth to the information gathered, but as in so much research on the benefits of the arts, desperately trying to explain why the arts are important to people who don't really care, if one looks more objectively you can see that most of the economic benefits could be just as easily attributed to other activities. It simply becomes tiresome to yet again, breathlessly try to find the Universal Truth that will FINALLY make everybody see the unique benefits of arts experiences have for most anybody. Maybe the answer is to do it one-by-one. I don't know. But please keep talking, Jane Remer!

Untested?

How many times do I have to post this link?

http://www.artsusa.org/Economicimpact/

I'm not saying arts advocacy isn't mostly a failure, I agree with you, but to say that our economic impact is unproven is just wrong.

As a musician, I am curious: how does it work in Finland, or in Venezuela, to name two countries whose political and cultural leaders have managed to make the development of musical ability a national priority and even a point of national identity?

Our inner-city schools are overwhelmed with the challenges of providing what we believe to be most basic educational lessons (i.e. the "3 Rs") to kids whose home and neighborhood life isn't a bit supportive of any of it. The arts may be a way to reach some kids to get them engaged in education generally, but there seems to be little if any evidence that it plays a significant role. So perhaps we should unburden the schools from much of the arts-education role in favor of a different model.

I posted on another of these blog themes about the idea of expanding arts-participation opportunities for amateur artists. A decentralized, third-party, not-for-profit approach to arts education and engagement might be a better model than centralization of such curricula through the public schools.

Do we value development of artistic ability beyond the capitalist model of audience appeal (i.e. sales) as the priority determinant? If so, the not-for-profit sector could provide a means for this, assuming that grant money can be developed for it. Is it valuable to us to identify nascent artistic ability in children in order to help find ways to develop it, even if the income-generating opportunities are typically quite limited? These are the kind of questions we should be asking if it is time to decouple arts education from the public primary and secondary schools.

How to instill in a child a meaningful relationship to the arts? This is a complex issue Jane Remer has outlined here clearly, intelligently, and with a passionate subtext.

While we're waiting for her ideas to be implemented--and, as she writes, it may be a long wait--how about this? Choose a child--your own, an acquaintance's, or one found through an institution--who seems to be susceptible to a specific art with which you yourself have an ongoing, fervent experience. Act as the youngster's mentor.

Say the choice is the visual arts. Take the child regularly to short visits to different museums, saying, as Diaghilev did to Balanchine, "Look!" Do not "instruct" the child about what s/he is seeing but simply answer questions the child may ask or ask the child an occasion question about what the two of you are looking at.

Provide the child with an opportunity to work with a variety of art-making materials and the opportunity to use them. Again, do not instruct except for technical advice when absolutely necessary--about how the materials work, not what to create with them. Never ask about the finished work "What is it?" At most say, "Do you want to tell me anything about what you've made?"

Encourage the child to take some of the results home and display others in your own home or workplace so the child can see the value people place on them.

When you're traveling, say to the museum, with the child, comment about the ordinary things worth looking at all around you.

This is not necessarily an expensive venture but it requires your time and commitment. At the very least the child will absorb the attention you're offering her/her. And of course you will learn a lot from the experience.
--tt.