I was once asked by a charter school operator to assist them in finding some arts teachers. They showed me their instructional schedule for their all-day kindergarten and first grade classes, and I was floored, absolutely floored by the amount of time spent on drilling and test prep for reading and math.

I mean, this is kindergarten. A five year old being drilled for hours on end. My first thought was that I would NEVER allow my daughter to attend that school, and I was pretty damn sure that the charter operator's kids went to private schools.

Well, here comes a new report from the Alliance for Childhood: Crisis in Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School.

The report looks at kindergarten classes in New York City and Los Angeles and finds that students spend 2-3 hours per day in literacy and math instruction and testing; of that 20-30 minutes per day is spent on standardized test preparation. Less than 30 minutes per day and often zero time is spent on play or choice time (which is where the arts would take place).

A few weeks ago I wrote about a new report from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) concerning the effects of NCLB on arts instruction (see narrowing of curriculum).

Not a great deal of attention has been paid to this study, beyond a piece in the Dallas Morning News and two recent blogs: Eduwonk, and Education Week. Additionally, Michael Sikes of the Arts Education Partnership published an analysis of the report.

I have intended to come back to the study, as all I really did in my blog was to announce it. The piece in the Dallas Morning News pressed the issue.

The more I looked at this study, the more uneasy I felt.

I had spent some time with the researchers and like them very much. It's important to realize that even though they're the Government Accounting Office, as impressive as that may sound, the title doesn't necessarily give them access to information that districts, state departments of education, and USDOE do not want to share with them. In addition, the parameters they were allowed to research were extremely narrow.

So, the report took a look at two academic years of data, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007, and drew the conclusion that NCLB had caused little to no reduction in arts instruction for the roughly 93% of elementary school teachers surveyed nationwide. It found that seven percent of schools surveyed reduced instruction in the arts and that the most significant declines were in schools that were failing to meet AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) under NCLB measurement on standardized tests in reading and math, as well those with the highest percentages of minority students.

So, you might argue that it's very good news for those who support NCLB, with some very bad news if you have an interest in equity (which is what NCLB is supposed to be about anyway).

Good and bad, it is big news, and disputes the widely discussed report by the Center for Education Policy on NCLB and the narrowing of the curriculum.

So, why am I uneasy?

So, he's been dead for 35 years, but still, have you heard of him?

I was watching a bit of President Obama's press conference last night and a question was asked concerning families who are living in tents. This was fairly common in New York City and other urban areas, I presume, in the rough and tumble late 70's through mid 80's, but I hadn't heard mention of it yet as a present day issue. Today, The New York Times ran a  front page story with lead photo about the tent cities emerging.  It made me think of The Great Depression, the Hoovervilles, of John Steinbeck, Upton Sinclair, Walker Evans--the ways in which that time was chronicled and given voice by some of the greatest artists of the day.

Sadly, few know of Harry Partch. Partch was composer, theorist, inventor, historian, and without question was of the most important and innovative composers of that crazy innovative, American composer driven 20th Century.

Partch composed using a 43 tone scale. While he wasn't the first composer to use what are called "microtones," he certainly is one of the most important. He also created his own set of instruments to play in this musical system. And, when I use the term system, I don't use it lightly as Partch developed an extremely well thought through system of just intonation that will give a headache to anyone math-challenged or music theory challenged.

So, you may ask, does this make him someone I should know?

Uh-huh.

Let's look at one of Partch's works, that places him in the context of great artists who illuminated life during the Great Depression.

US High Ball is one section of The Wayward, available on recordings in versions led by Partch himself (CRI Records) and The Kronos Quartet (Nonesuch) in a splendid arrangement by Partch colleague and wonderful composer, Ben Johnston. The Wayward is based upon Partch's riding the rails, hobo-style. Yup, he was a hobo for a time. You can read about it in any number of books, or even watch the Preston Sturgis film Sullivan's Travels, or Emperor of the North, or Boxcar Bertha among others, should you need a refresher on the term hobo.

If you want to hear it, hear the voices, real words and lyrics and feel it through the musical genius of Harry Partch, check out US High Ball, and then give a listen to the entire The Wayward.

I have always thought that Partch's work would make the most wonderful curriculum for study by K-12 students. Wanna talk integration of the arts across the curriculum? Head straight for Harry Partch and you will find music, history, science, math, social studies, and more. This is integration of the arts across the curriculum, the curriculum of life. It's one of those projects I hope to get to someday...

And, the way things are shaping up with our and the world's economy, US High Ball may be closer than we think.

Partch documentary on Youtube.

Okay, we've been here before. Nevertheless, a new study has been published in the journal Psychology of Music: The Effect of Piano Study on the Vocabularly and Verbal Sequencing of Primary Grade Students by Joseph M. Piro and Camilo Ortiz. (You can only view the abstract without a subscription.)

Using a quasi-experimental research model, the study chose two schools in the same geographic area, with similar demographics, and all the students were part of the same ELA program (Balanced Literacy).  Students in the treatment school studied piano for three straight years; those in the control group had no musical training whatsoever.

The students were assessed at the beginning of the study and again at end of the school year.

The research showed that the students who studied piano had significantly better vocabulary and verbal sequencing than did the students in the control group. The researchers posit that this is evidence to support the approach of "educators incorporating a variety of approaches, including music, in their teaching practice...to improve reading achievement in children."

The authors see a link between music and language: "because neural response to music is a widely distributed system within the brain.... it would not be unreasonable to expect that some processing networks for music and language behaviors, namely reading, located in both hemispheres of the brain would overlap."

There are some other interesting tidbits concerning the baseline data raising questions of whether or not certain skills from music decline over the summer when students may not be studying piano. It's not an unusual issue in education: teachers often speak about certain skills and knowledge fading during summer vacation.

Of course, questions will be raised about the duration of the study, size of the study groups, etc. Some will circulate it as the silver bullet; others will take the piece to task.

Interestingly enough, the piece was forwarded to me by the staff of a key elected official in New York City, with the note: "...more research always helps."

The fact that I got this piece from the office of an government official before someone in the arts education field gives me more hope than the study itself...

In the special section on museums in today's New York Times, an article by Dorothy Spears titled When The Gallery is a Classroom, opened with the following :

"For years, with school budgets declining in so many American cities, museums have provided a parallel universe for learning. Now, with the Obama administration poised to support arts education with increased financing, museums nationwide are eager to align themselves with those efforts."

"Poised to support arts education with increased financing." Sounds great? Absolutely. Better than great. That being said, I cannot figure out the basis for the assertion of increased funding for arts education. Is it the increase to the NEA budget? The stimulus package? Advanced information? Extrapolated from Obama's arts platform? Sure, the additional budget amount for the NEA (excluding the $50 million stimulus allocation) will see increased dollars for arts education, but it's not designated for arts education and in the grand scheme of things, it's not going to make that much of a dent. Plus, it's already been approved in the spending bill.

 

It's a terrific article, in terms of looking at certain aspects of museum education and outreach. But that first paragraph really jumps out at you and makes you wonder if it's going to build up false hopes. I would like to be positive about this and hope that there's something afoot in the administration near term (poised), that hasn't been indicated yet.

If you're wondering whether that increase is in the education portion of the stimulus bill, let's not get ahead of ourselves. For my next blog, I am going to do an update on that issue, but as a teaser, I can tell you that for the moment it appears that the arts would have to find a circuitous route into the $100 billion designated for education. Also, there are a couple of other bills to look at, including the GIVE Act, which is headed for passage, focusing on volunteerism and education. More to come on that too.

Fair enough, the State of California is in a financial meltdown that predates the national economic decline, and yup, it's nothing new.

What's new is the extent of the troubled economy and the types of things that are on the chopping block. The state that made headlines for creating a $100 million plus categorical, per-capita fund for arts education; that's gone, basically, as the categorical restriction on the funding has been lifted allowing use for other purposes. Funding for arts organizations to work in schools through The Arts Community Partnership Network was suspended this past winter. And, well, many of you will recall the budget decimation of The California Arts Council, a number of years ago. (Something that appears to be happening in New Jersey right now...back on point!).

According to the Los Angeles Times, LAUSD will cut $10 million from funding for arts education, which is projected to include the elimination of the Arts Education Branch at LAUSD. An online petition to save the Arts Education Branch is accessible here.

Insiders report that there is indeed a plan to restructure LAUSD, which includes the elimination of the Arts Education Branch. This is among major cuts to teaching and administrative lines.

At the same time, The Wallace Foundation gave a planning grant of $600,000 to advance arts education in the district, and a separate grant for the county. Add to that, stimulus money flowing to the district and it will be an important bellwether to watch and learn from.

It's also interesting how little I've been able to find in the media and field about how this is all developing...

Okay, I have a goal of losing 20 pounds. Really. I've got about six pound to go. Having that target is extremely helpful. Ask my scale, it's gotten a workout.

Along comes Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over Prescribing Goal Setting,  a new paper published in the the Harvard Business School's Working Knowledge  that has the chutzpah to question the primacy of goal setting.

Besides having great taste in titles, the piece posits:

Eric Booth was kind enough to forward me this survey from the San Diego School District. It is both visionary and innovative (the edu-term of the moment) and at the same time a bit old school.

Essentially the San Diego School Unified School District, as it contemplates cuts to the budget, has decided to survey parents and others in the community to understand better what cuts to implement.

So, what does the survey tell us? First of all, it addresses what market researchers call the saliency issue. You have probably seen all sorts of polls, from Harris, to Lake Research, and others that indicate strong support for the arts. However, when you place the arts in a competitive arena, up against other subjects/issues, there has been a general belief that support for the arts dwindles.

This survey indicated that respondents are more supportive of cuts to other areas than for the arts (and physical education). Respondents would prefer moderate increases to class size (very interesting) instead of cutting band. Respondents would rather consider cuts to medical benefits and support services (professional development, etc.), than cutting visual and performing arts programs. Respondents would prefer to close schools with low enrollment, cut JROTC, and assign one principal to two small schools, rather than cut the arts.

So, how is this old school (backwards)? Well, you many notice that the survey only considers the subject areas of athletics and arts as possible subject areas to eliminate. There are no questions about any other subject areas, which in a way lumps the arts in with administrative overhead, landscaping, and general personnel issues.

What's odd about this is that in so many schools, particularly those that are on things like "watch lists" or identified as being in need of improvement, instruction in the arts is diminished along with foreign languages, social studies, science, and most everything except ELA and math.

All things considered, it's great to see a district ask a community what's important. Hopefully the district will act upon this information.

This reminds me of the Town Hall meeting I attended with the superintendent of the South Orange/Maplewood, New Jersey school district. The superintendent made it clear that he would not succumb to accountability measures that narrowed the curriculum. He recognized that parents in this community expect a rich arts curriculum and he was not about to back away from a well rounded education that includes the arts.

That meeting drew a red thread between expectations of active parent organizations and the level of arts instruction in a district or school.

My friend Schuyler Chapin died last Saturday. Perhaps you didn't know him. Perhaps you didn't know much beyond his tenure as New York City Commissioner of Cultural Affairs or saw him interviewed in a documentary about Leonard Bernstein. Maybe you read one of the obituaries.

All the aphorisms about Schuyler are true: the end of an era; he broke the mold; a true gentleman; lived a charmed life; and yes, I could go on.

The career Schuyler had, well, I just don't think it could be possible today. In an era when people did not reinvent themselves and move from job to job, career to career as they do today, Schuyler was the doing it and doing it big time.

Essentially, he started out as Jascha Heifetz's road manager. In a relatively brief amount time he headed up Artists and Repertoire at Columbia Records. He was right there at what was the beginning of the true golden age of recordings. Under Columbia, you had Ormandy, Bernstein, Szell, all making volumes and volumes of recordings. He was there with Horowitz, Stravinsky, Glenn Gould, and countless others.

From Columbia he went to Lincoln Center, as the first head of programming at the first performing arts center of its kind in the nation.

Much has been written about his time at the Metropolitan Opera and at the NYC Department of Cultural Affairs. But, it is his work with and for the many artists, and the many friendships and important relationships that he had that was the mark of this great man. His important friendship with Leonard Bernstein. His support for the career of Dimitri Mitropoulos. His friendship with the great music patron Francis Goelet. Schuyler's touch is clear throughout the philanthropy of Goelet. These are just a couple of examples from a list that is too great to count.

A number of years ago, I read a biography of Dimitri Mitropoulos, the great mid 20th Cenury conductor and music director of the New York Philharmonic. Studded throughout the book is Schuyler Chapin, who managed Mitropoulos at the time. It becomes abundantly clear that Schuyler was more than a manager: he was helping Mitropoulos navigate his way through his complicated career and personal life.

Schuyler was always there when you needed advice and always found a way to help. I once went to him for career advice after just starting at The American Music Center. Things were so very rocky at that time and I was very worried.

He told that he had a story for me that he thought would be helpful, which I remember very, very well: when he was at Columbia Records, he got a phone call from the agency of the Soviet government that managed (controlled) all the major Soviet artists. They had a live concert recording of Sviatoslav Richter they wanted to sell Columbia Records. Back then, because of the Cold War, Soviet artists didn't make it over to the United States very often and there was a scarcity of recordings. Richter, if you don't know, was one of the truly great pianists of the day, and of all-time.

Schuyler got the green light to buy the master tapes, for a significant sum of money. It was to be a great moment for Columbia Records and for Schuyler's career.

The records were pressed, plans were made, and then a letter arrived from Richter himself begging Schuyler Chapin to destroy the recording. The letter was, in essence, smuggled in by another artist so the Soviets would not be alerted. Richter wrote that he was embarrassed by the performance and the recording was sold without his permission. Richter appealed to Schuyler's honor to halt the project.

Schuyler then had to march himself into the office of Goddard Lieberson (father of composer Peter Lieberson), president of Columbia Records (also a composer by training) to tell him that the project had to be canceled, including the destruction of the recordings, and the writing off of the money paid to the Soviets. Schuyler offered to resign. This glorious story, as told to my by Schuyler, who happened to be one of the greatest raconteurs you could ever encounter, concluded with Lieberson telling him he would not accept his resignation, but to be sure never to let it happen again.

This early crucible in Schuyler Chapin's career tells you much about the man. He would not let the great Sviatoslav Richter down and was prepared to lose his job over it.

He had a charm and grace about him that was from another place and time. The ability to put people at ease and the good musical skills to hit the right note and tone as a board member, a leader, and as a friend.

What was overlooked in the obituaries was his great leadership and commitment to arts education. He gave of his time and capital to help create The Center for Arts Education while bringing along the next generation of civic leaders committed to this cause, such as Laurie Tisch. He dreamed a dream along with many others of a public school system in New York City that would provide the power, beauty, and wonder of arts education to all its students. Where New York would be the arts capital and the arts education capital of the world.

Yes, he will be missed.

I was at a conference once, where Michelle Cahill, Vice President and Program Director of The Carnegie Corporation, and former Deputy Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools cautioned the arts education audience that their work must answer the question of how it is increasing graduation rates.

It was a blunt hortatory and an interesting moment. A good question for all the participants, and indeed the field to consider.

Today, at the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, President Obama outlined his vision for education, and it's in the overhaul category.

 Click here to read the transcript of prepared remarks.

Click here to read The New York Times coverage.

In summary here are the major points of his address:

• The Obama administration will make a major investment in early childhood education, including an additional $5 billion for Early Head Start and Head Start;
• A rethinking of standards to make them "tougher and clearer" and supportive of "21st Century skills like problem-solving and critical thinking, entrepreneurship and creativity." (for an interesting piece on 21st Century skills, click here to go to Education Week)
  
• An investment in the development of improved data systems, like "the one in Florida that keep track of a student's education from childhood through college."
• Incentive pay for teachers tied to student improved student achievement.
• Increasing the number of charter schools.

So there you have it.

Where does arts education fit in? On the surface of it, you could argue that there's great opportunity for arts education in early childhood; that the underscoring of 21st century skills is a big opening, and that a better understanding of exactly what student achievement in the arts is and how it can be measured and connected to other areas and issues is vitally important. (See Jane Remer's recent post).

On the other hand...

And they say the humanities degree is an endangered species...

Click here for Reuters.com story on Masters in Arts Degree in The Beatles.

One can only wonder if you have to take a class with Doctor Robert.

Can't you imagine yourself in a class discussing the folllowing:

The NEA has released its guidelines for its Recovery Programs.

For non state or local arts agencies, an organization may apply for $25,000 or $50,000, for the following purposes:

Projects are limited to:

• Salary support, full or partial, for one or more positions that are critical to an organization's artistic mission and that are in jeopardy or have been eliminated as a result of the current economic climate.

And/or

• Fees for previously engaged artists and/or contractual personnel to maintain or expand the period during which such persons would be engaged.

Click here to view the NEA guidelines.

Jane Remer's Cliff Notes: What Can We Do to Make the Arts Count As Education?

All research has flaws. Some flaws are so trivial that the research can still stand as the definitive study. Other flaws prevent a study from being definitive, but the study still provides useful guidance in the context of other research. Some flaws are so serious that the research provides no useful information at all. The tricky part is not finding flaws in the research but in deciding to what extent the flaws erode the credibility of the research. In general, the use of Randomized Clinical Trials can add substantial credibility to a research study. ...Of course, nonrandomized trials are an important complement to RCTs when the latter are ethically inappropriate or logistically impossible...Failure to use randomization or blinding, however, is not a fatal flaw. Furthermore, the artificial nature of RCTs will often restrict their applicability to overly simple interventions. When RCTs focus on narrow patient groups or exclude important segments of the population, there may be difficulty in generalizing their results. So it would be a mistake to label the RCT as a gold standard for all research. A silver standard may be a more appropriate label.

S.D. Simon, Dept. of Medical Research, Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo.

 

For years when I worked with public elementary and secondary schools and districts around the country, my first question to the superintendent was whether the arts were on his or her and the district supervisors' radar screens. The first question I asked the principals was whether the arts were on their school report cards. Even in the most arts friendly cities, towns and states, I generally got either a blank stare or an evasive response. Even when a principal said, yes, of course, what I found on the report cards had little if anything to do with teaching and learning the arts as an academic discipline. Report card indicators for the arts included attendance, acceptable behavior, and some kind of engagement in or contribution to class discussion. There wasn't a national, state or local arts standard in sight.

When I asked arts specialists how they graded their students, they told me they didn't; it was not required, and besides, they said they barely had time to teach, let alone assess, their full schedule of classes. When I asked classroom teachers involved in artist visits and long-term residencies how they assessed their students, the teachers said they didn't because they didn't feel prepared to fairly judge student performance in the arts. When I asked the artists, most of them told me they didn't know how, had no time to do it, and no one had offered to pay for the work.

No wonder the arts are on the periphery.

These days, with all the testing, grading, counting and accountability measures, almost no one at any level of the educational system is asking hard questions about the quality, depth, scope, or fidelity to national/state/or local standards of arts teaching and learning in the classrooms. And with very few but always notable exceptions, most schools and their arts providers or partners spend little if any time on documenting, researching, reflecting, assessing and evaluating the quality and depth of arts instruction and arts learning over time.

Today, when people talk about counting the arts, they usually mean quantifying -- how much, how often, by whom, for whom, at what cost, and the like. These are good things to know but they tell us nothing about what is being taught and learned, the quality of instruction and learning, the depth of inquiry, the time spent on reflection, and the methods, if any, used to assess the process and the results. They don't tell us when to make mid-course corrections, where the learning gaps are, how teachers or students are struggling (or not), and where an infusion of technical and other professional assistance might be judicious. In other words, we don't have the information we need to diagnose our own knowledge and behavior as well as that of our students. And, we don't treat the arts like full-fledged core subjects that are essential to student overall growth and achievement.

Those of us who believe in the potential power of arts education and assessment are caught in a catch-22.  We know that what gets tested, gets taught but, we don't want to "test" the arts in a standardized way (multiple choice, short answer) because we know there are diverse solutions to arts "problems" in both the way they are solved and the results themselves. We have developed a treasure trove of flexible, effective and yet rigorous alternative, mixed method (quantitative and qualitative, formative and summative) ways to document, research, assess and evaluate student response and behavior in and through the arts. But we are keenly aware that no matter how sound our approach and credible our answers, they are likely to be dismissed by the research, academic and business community as "soft" because they do not meet the scientific "gold standard" of randomized controlled experiments that produce results theoretically generalizable to a larger community. Some funding sources such as the USDOE's model arts programs have begun to accept "quasi-experimental" designs, but their preference remains for statistically significant hard data.

It is hard to make the case for money to assess teaching and learning in and through the arts, no matter what methods you choose. How do you argue persuasively for the research and evaluation of an academic discipline that is barely noticed and rarely classified as basic? How do you make the case for investigating ways to develop and sustain arts learning, however you define it, when it is almost invisible in most of our nation's classrooms? And how do you answer the insistent questions about the value the arts add to the cognitive, social, emotional, intellectual and physical development of our youth when even our best research and evaluations have so far relied on correlations, not odds on causal connections?

What is so sad for me is that we have not been able to fulfill the three big promises the arts and education pioneers made to us half a century ago: 1) All the nation's schools will offer quality sequential and comprehensive study of at least the four major art forms for all the children in every classroom, K-Twelve. 2) In all of these schools, the arts will be taught by certified arts specialists and classroom teachers with the help of college and university professionals and trained visiting artists drawn from the community's cultural resources. 3) The arts will join the other academics in the core curriculum as equals.

Unfortunately, we are still caught in the loop of the Coney Island roller coaster ride of booms and busts, with the status and fate of arts education rising and falling with the economy.

In case my answer to whether and how we need to count the arts to make them count in the classroom is not yet clear, I will elaborate. My argument is a version of the old saw, what gets tested gets taught, and if we are smart, we will begin to devise the fair and challenging "tests" ourselves before someone else starts forcing standardized or inappropriate tests on us. We need to sift through our vast collective experience and figure out how to carefully blend quantitative and qualitative methods that will capture the essence of art learning. I believe we have ample, field-tested examples of productive methods using, perhaps, a version of collaborative practitioner research, that we can draw on to design more complex research, assessments and evaluations that won't break the bank. These designs probably won't meet the gold standard, but can meet the silver standard that Simon talks about in the quote below the title. But this will only happen if and when we take it upon ourselves to define what "silver" stands for and design a collaborative, school-based approach that draws on the knowledge, experience and participation of all partners in the arts education enterprise. My hope, of course, is that this  communal task will help to build a school constituency with a much deeper and more personal understanding of the value of the arts.

Of course,  there is no guarantee, even if we were to build public and transparent assessment into every single school-based arts program from here on out, that anyone would take notice or care.  Arts knowledge and skills, after all, are not yet considered high stakes essentials in the corridors of power. However, I am heartened by Sonia Davis, a parent in the South Bronx, who is reported in last Sunday's Times as saying as while she interviewed potential schools for her two daughters at a fair in Harlem:"You've got to have baseball, chess, cheerleading, drama, debate, poetry and music--oh God, music - like the cello and violin..." 

 

Perhaps there's grass roots hope, after all, one parent at a time.

 

What do you think?

 

©Jane Remer      3/2/2009  

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

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.

About a year ago, I had the pleasure of meeting with two staff members of the Goverment Accounting Office (GAO) and some of my own staff and board to discuss the the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) on access to arts education.

The GAO has released a report: click here to read Access to Arts Education, February 2009, GAO 09-286

The highlights can be found by clicking here.

This report was conducted per the request of Congress, which asked the GAO:

1. has the amount of instruction time for arts education changed and, of so, have certain groups been more affected than others,

2. to what extent have state agencies' requirements and funding for arts education changed since NCLBA.

3. what are school officials in selected districts doing to provide arts education since NCLBA and what challenges do they face in doing so,

4. what is known about the effect of arts education in improving student outcomes?

GAO analyzed data from the U.S. Department of Education, surveyed 50 state arts officials, interviewed officials in eight school districts, and reviewed existing research.

The main conclusions:

1. Since NCLBA District and School Principals have used several strategies to provide arts education; however, some struggled with decreased budgets and competing demands on instruction time.

2.Officials report that when trade-offs involving funding or instruction time for arts education had to be made, the school principal made the decision.

3. Overall research on the association between arts education and student outcomes is inconclusive.

4. Schools in need of improvements as categorized under NCLBA, which include a higher percentage of low income and minority students were more likely to reduce instructional time in the arts.

There is a lot here and I haven't had the time to go through this. The GAO's focus here was fairly limited, as determined by the charge from congress. GAO is recommending that further study be done to examine more closely the reasons behind decreased instructional time when and where it has occurred.

Finally, for the moment, let's keep in mind that this report, for all intents and purposes, is based upon data before the current economic crises.

More to come...