Dewey 21C: January 2010 Archives
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.
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:
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?
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.
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
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:
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.
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, 1971Or from a NYT piece shortly after BCHS opened in 1973, an interview with the first BCHS principal, Robert Rappaport:
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.
"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.
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.
On January 20th, the USDOE is hosting an information session for arts education constituents concerning the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), otherwise known during the Bush administration as No Child Left Behind.
In regards to the arts, I know no one who holds the view that NCLB was anything but bad legislation. In a GAO report last year, it was reported that NCLB led to considerable problems related to equity and access. In other words, the kids who depend on schools the most for a quality education that includes the arts, got a raw deal.
So, where is the administration heading on this?
An article this week in Education Week predicated that that the reauthorization of ESEA would resemble the USDOE's Race to the Top (RttT):
In addition, the RttT's enhanced focus on STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and math) is also likely to be focused on within ESEA.
I guess the big question for arts education advocates is whether or not ESEA will be arts education positive, neutral, or negative?
What can we learn from the last time around? The big win last time around was that arts education was classified in NCLB as a "core subject," thanks to the efforts of a number of national advocates.
Yes, a win is a win, and in principle, it was important in helping to avoid arts being seen as "extracurricular."
That being said, the next steps must be to ensure that accountability and other elements of ESEA, tied to testing in a few non-arts subjects do not ultimately make the arts non-core subjects as a practical matter.
I am attending the January 20th meeting and will be happy to report back as a blog entry.
ESEA Re Authorization and Arts Education
In regards to the arts, I know no one who holds the view that NCLB was anything but bad legislation. In a GAO report last year, it was reported that NCLB led to considerable problems related to equity and access. In other words, the kids who depend on schools the most for a quality education that includes the arts, got a raw deal.
So, where is the administration heading on this?
An article this week in Education Week predicated that that the reauthorization of ESEA would resemble the USDOE's Race to the Top (RttT):
• Turning around the lowest-performing schools.
• Bolstering state data systems in order to link K-12 systems with early learning, higher education, workforce, social services, and other state data.
• Improving teacher quality and the distribution of effective teachers.
• Strengthening standards and assessments.
In addition, the RttT's enhanced focus on STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and math) is also likely to be focused on within ESEA.
I guess the big question for arts education advocates is whether or not ESEA will be arts education positive, neutral, or negative?
What can we learn from the last time around? The big win last time around was that arts education was classified in NCLB as a "core subject," thanks to the efforts of a number of national advocates.
Yes, a win is a win, and in principle, it was important in helping to avoid arts being seen as "extracurricular."
That being said, the next steps must be to ensure that accountability and other elements of ESEA, tied to testing in a few non-arts subjects do not ultimately make the arts non-core subjects as a practical matter.
I am attending the January 20th meeting and will be happy to report back as a blog entry.
ESEA Re Authorization and Arts Education
There are a few composer performers who are have associated themselves with silent film greats and other great iconic comedians. The first grouping I want to point out is Bill Frisell and Buster Keaton.
Then there's Don Byron and Ernie Kovacs.
And, there's Dave Douglas and Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle.
There are others, most notably composers who have written new scores to major silent films, such as Richard Einhorn's Voices of Light: The Passion of Joan of Arc, which is a opera/oratorio Einhorn composed for Carl Dryer's 1927 silent film. Then you have Carl Davis, whom in addition to a large body of film score compositions, was commissioned to write new scores for a number of Harold Lloyd masterpieces.
For today, we're going to stick with the category of comedy, primarily from the silent period.
Okay, first let me ask, do you know any of these artists? Kovacs? Keaton? Arbuckle? Douglas? Frisell? Byron?
Most people who have any interest in cinema know Buster Keaton. He is one of a group of great masters of silent film comedy that includes names long faded away from the consciousness of all but the most die hard fans of silent films: Charley Chase, Roscoe Arbuckle, and Harry Langdon. The very top of the silent film pyramid consists of Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd.
They are all great, truly, truly great. And I love them all. Do I have a favorite?
Well, I guess it would have to be Buster.
Recently, on Studio 360, Kurt Andersen interviewed guitarist and composer Bill Frisell about the DVD release of three Buster Keaton masterpieces set to original music by Frisell. You see, Frisell has a history with Keaton, having created a number of pieces set to the films of Keaton, but never actually paired together in a DVD. So, yes, you could listen to the music, but not actually watch the movie with Frisell's composition as the soundtrack. Now, thankfully, there are three Keaton classics available as for the first time, each with a Frisell soundtrack.
If you don't know either artist all that well, this is a great opportunity to connect with two of America's best. Frisell is a brilliant composer, guitarist, and musical citizen. His work runs the gamut from experimental, to straight up jazz, folk, rock, world music, and more. His output is remarkable in terms of amount, but more important in terms of quality. His commitment to music and musicians never ceases to amaze.
For Keaton fans, this is particularly good news, as the state of the art Keaton DVD's come from the company Kino, and somewhere along the line, somehow, they commissioned the Alloy Orchestra to create original music for the Keaton discs. I am sorry to stay that I hate the Alloy Orchestra's Keaton scores. For me, well, the scores just don't fit what's happening on screen. I tend to turn the sound off when watching those DVDs.
So, pairing Frisell's music to Keaton for the first time on DVD is a blessing.
What I love about Keaton, the thing that distinguishes him from Chaplin, Lloyd, and the other greats, is his mix of humor, pathos, and absurdity; in other words the very broad palette of human conditions that he paints with in a manner that is highly experimental. He pushed the early technology to its very limits. If you want to see what I mean, watch Sherlock Jr., to witness his character walk down the aisle of a movie theater, right straight through the screen and directly into the movie being projected. Many years later this was paid tribute to by directors such as Woody Allen (The Purple Rose of Cairo) and Giuseppe Tornatore (Cinema Paradiso).
How about the other two pairings?
Dave Douglas and Fatty Arbuckle: Keystone was one of Dave's first releases Greenleaf, his own label . It's an interesting choice, as Arbuckle is probably the most misunderstood and overlooked of the silent film comedy greats. A mentor to Chaplin, as well as the person who gave Buster Keaton his break in film, Arbuckle's work has been overshadowed for well over a half century by a scandal that ruined his name and career. A few years ago, The Forgotten Films of Roscoe Fatty Arbuckle was released on DVD. This set was the first on DVD to really help restate the importance and place of Arbuckle in film. I am sorry to say that it is already out of print.
Dave Douglas's recording Keystone includes both CD and DVD, and features Fatty and Mable Adrift, accompanied by original music composed and performed by Douglas and ensemble, including a DJ and a Wurlitzer organ. And of course, Keystone refers to the Keystone cops and the Keystone movie studio of pioneer Mack Sennett, in case you missed the reference.
In many ways Dave Douglas is cast from a similar mold as Frisell. His range of interest in music and the musicians he works with are remarkable. He's another artist who has a deep commitment to a community of artists. Check out Spirit Moves, released in mid-2009 made a whole host of the jazz top ten lists for the year.
Also check out Dave's most recent release, which is another case in point for the range of artists he associates with. A Single Sky pairs Douglas with Jim McNeely and the Frankfurt Radio Big Band. McNeely, long associated with the Vanguard Jazz Orchestra is one of the most interesting composer/arrangers out there working with big band. He's no slouch as a pianist either. LOL!
I do also want to point out the Festival of New Trumpet Music that Dave co-founded along with two other great trumpet players: Roy Campbell, Jr., and Jon Nelson. This festival, which is an organization run by and for musicians, is kicking off its 2010 program next week.
Finally, there's Don Byron and Ernie Kovacs. What a tremendous pairing. On A Ballad for Many, Byron composes a score to a 1957 Kovacs television special containing no spoken words: Silent Show.
The back story to Silent Show tells much of what you want to know about Kovacs. In a nutshell, after just having splitting up with his partner Dean Martin, at a peak period of popularity, Jerry Lewis is offered a 90 minute TV special. He decides to only do 60 minutes. NBC casts about looking for someone to fill the open 30 minute slot. No one wanted it, for they we afraid to follow Jerry Lewis.
In steps Kovacs, who gets the blessing for a 30 minute near silent program (except for music and sound effects) that establishes Kovacs's genius for all time. If there's a TV artist whom you would link with Buster Keaton, well, without a doubt it would have to be Ernie Kovacs.
As for Don Byron, he's a master musician who has associated himself with the very widest range of styles, ideas, politics, and people imaginable. I was first blown away by his playing in the 80s, when as a member of the Klezmer Conservatory Band, he played about the best Klezmer clarinet. From there, his road winds through gospel, to funk, to straight up classical, to straight up jazz, to through composed music, to soul, to Sondheim, and so very much more. He was recently a finalist for Pulitzer Prize in music composition.
These are three master American musical artists, who have linked themselves with three master American film and television artists of the past. It would all make for quite a nice little study on the integration of the arts, don't you think?
For a future entry, the greatest comedian of all time: W.C. Fields.
Then there's Don Byron and Ernie Kovacs.
And, there's Dave Douglas and Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle.
There are others, most notably composers who have written new scores to major silent films, such as Richard Einhorn's Voices of Light: The Passion of Joan of Arc, which is a opera/oratorio Einhorn composed for Carl Dryer's 1927 silent film. Then you have Carl Davis, whom in addition to a large body of film score compositions, was commissioned to write new scores for a number of Harold Lloyd masterpieces.
For today, we're going to stick with the category of comedy, primarily from the silent period.Okay, first let me ask, do you know any of these artists? Kovacs? Keaton? Arbuckle? Douglas? Frisell? Byron?
Most people who have any interest in cinema know Buster Keaton. He is one of a group of great masters of silent film comedy that includes names long faded away from the consciousness of all but the most die hard fans of silent films: Charley Chase, Roscoe Arbuckle, and Harry Langdon. The very top of the silent film pyramid consists of Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd.
They are all great, truly, truly great. And I love them all. Do I have a favorite?
Well, I guess it would have to be Buster.
Recently, on Studio 360, Kurt Andersen interviewed guitarist and composer Bill Frisell about the DVD release of three Buster Keaton masterpieces set to original music by Frisell. You see, Frisell has a history with Keaton, having created a number of pieces set to the films of Keaton, but never actually paired together in a DVD. So, yes, you could listen to the music, but not actually watch the movie with Frisell's composition as the soundtrack. Now, thankfully, there are three Keaton classics available as for the first time, each with a Frisell soundtrack.If you don't know either artist all that well, this is a great opportunity to connect with two of America's best. Frisell is a brilliant composer, guitarist, and musical citizen. His work runs the gamut from experimental, to straight up jazz, folk, rock, world music, and more. His output is remarkable in terms of amount, but more important in terms of quality. His commitment to music and musicians never ceases to amaze.
For Keaton fans, this is particularly good news, as the state of the art Keaton DVD's come from the company Kino, and somewhere along the line, somehow, they commissioned the Alloy Orchestra to create original music for the Keaton discs. I am sorry to stay that I hate the Alloy Orchestra's Keaton scores. For me, well, the scores just don't fit what's happening on screen. I tend to turn the sound off when watching those DVDs.
So, pairing Frisell's music to Keaton for the first time on DVD is a blessing.
What I love about Keaton, the thing that distinguishes him from Chaplin, Lloyd, and the other greats, is his mix of humor, pathos, and absurdity; in other words the very broad palette of human conditions that he paints with in a manner that is highly experimental. He pushed the early technology to its very limits. If you want to see what I mean, watch Sherlock Jr., to witness his character walk down the aisle of a movie theater, right straight through the screen and directly into the movie being projected. Many years later this was paid tribute to by directors such as Woody Allen (The Purple Rose of Cairo) and Giuseppe Tornatore (Cinema Paradiso).
How about the other two pairings?
Dave Douglas and Fatty Arbuckle: Keystone was one of Dave's first releases Greenleaf, his own label . It's an interesting choice, as Arbuckle is probably the most misunderstood and overlooked of the silent film comedy greats. A mentor to Chaplin, as well as the person who gave Buster Keaton his break in film, Arbuckle's work has been overshadowed for well over a half century by a scandal that ruined his name and career. A few years ago, The Forgotten Films of Roscoe Fatty Arbuckle was released on DVD. This set was the first on DVD to really help restate the importance and place of Arbuckle in film. I am sorry to say that it is already out of print.
Dave Douglas's recording Keystone includes both CD and DVD, and features Fatty and Mable Adrift, accompanied by original music composed and performed by Douglas and ensemble, including a DJ and a Wurlitzer organ. And of course, Keystone refers to the Keystone cops and the Keystone movie studio of pioneer Mack Sennett, in case you missed the reference.In many ways Dave Douglas is cast from a similar mold as Frisell. His range of interest in music and the musicians he works with are remarkable. He's another artist who has a deep commitment to a community of artists. Check out Spirit Moves, released in mid-2009 made a whole host of the jazz top ten lists for the year.
Also check out Dave's most recent release, which is another case in point for the range of artists he associates with. A Single Sky pairs Douglas with Jim McNeely and the Frankfurt Radio Big Band. McNeely, long associated with the Vanguard Jazz Orchestra is one of the most interesting composer/arrangers out there working with big band. He's no slouch as a pianist either. LOL!
I do also want to point out the Festival of New Trumpet Music that Dave co-founded along with two other great trumpet players: Roy Campbell, Jr., and Jon Nelson. This festival, which is an organization run by and for musicians, is kicking off its 2010 program next week.
Finally, there's Don Byron and Ernie Kovacs. What a tremendous pairing. On A Ballad for Many, Byron composes a score to a 1957 Kovacs television special containing no spoken words: Silent Show.
The back story to Silent Show tells much of what you want to know about Kovacs. In a nutshell, after just having splitting up with his partner Dean Martin, at a peak period of popularity, Jerry Lewis is offered a 90 minute TV special. He decides to only do 60 minutes. NBC casts about looking for someone to fill the open 30 minute slot. No one wanted it, for they we afraid to follow Jerry Lewis.
In steps Kovacs, who gets the blessing for a 30 minute near silent program (except for music and sound effects) that establishes Kovacs's genius for all time. If there's a TV artist whom you would link with Buster Keaton, well, without a doubt it would have to be Ernie Kovacs.
As for Don Byron, he's a master musician who has associated himself with the very widest range of styles, ideas, politics, and people imaginable. I was first blown away by his playing in the 80s, when as a member of the Klezmer Conservatory Band, he played about the best Klezmer clarinet. From there, his road winds through gospel, to funk, to straight up classical, to straight up jazz, to through composed music, to soul, to Sondheim, and so very much more. He was recently a finalist for Pulitzer Prize in music composition.
These are three master American musical artists, who have linked themselves with three master American film and television artists of the past. It would all make for quite a nice little study on the integration of the arts, don't you think?
For a future entry, the greatest comedian of all time: W.C. Fields.
The Los Angeles Unified School District is proposing to eliminate 
funding for its elementary grades arts education program by the end of 2011.
Here's the budget document from LAUSD.
Here's the online petition against the cuts.
Here's the action center of Arts for LA.
According to the online petition, LAUSD is the only large urban district in the United States that provides an equitable standards-based arts education for all of its elementary students by giving them the opportunity to experience all of the four arts disciplines through the Elementary Arts Program.
Certainly, if this change goes through, you can change the above statement to: LAUSD was the only..." Oh, and yes, the kids will lose out.
funding for its elementary grades arts education program by the end of 2011.
Here's the budget document from LAUSD.
Here's the online petition against the cuts.
Here's the action center of Arts for LA.
According to the online petition, LAUSD is the only large urban district in the United States that provides an equitable standards-based arts education for all of its elementary students by giving them the opportunity to experience all of the four arts disciplines through the Elementary Arts Program.
Certainly, if this change goes through, you can change the above statement to: LAUSD was the only..." Oh, and yes, the kids will lose out.
Those who have been around the block a few times will probably see this as just another instance of the vicissitudes of funding. We've seen any number of large scale funding initiatives come and go; any number of major funders for arts education come and go. Once upon a time there was the JDR 3rd Fund, The GE Fund, The Annenberg Foundation, and others.
Nevertheless, the general opinion appears to be that 2009 was a pretty bad year, and it's hard to argue against that position when it comes to arts education funding.
In 2009, the Ford Foundation, the Dana Foundation, and the Wallace Foundation either ended their arts education programs entirely or reduced them significantly.
Ford made final grants to its cohort of arts education grantees across the country.
Dana just announced that it is ending its support for teaching artist training. That being said, Dana will continue to support arts education as part of its brain research program.
The Wallace Foundation reduced its overall footprint significantly by laying off somewhere around a third of its staff, including the elimination of two senior positions directly related to arts learning and one related indirectly. While Wallace is expected to continue making select grants in arts learning, including renewals to some existing grantees, the explosive growth in position and influence witnessed in the past four years in arts education appears to have ended by practically all accounts. The saving grace here is that my friend Daniel Windham remains at Wallace. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out at Wallace.
It is what it is--the times they are a-changin'.
And yes, the times are always a-changin', and will change again. So, I am not all gloom and doom on the fifth day of this new decade, but feel it's important to take note of the losses of 2009 and hope that 2010 will bring some new actors to the national and regional funding stage.
And, if you want the real deal, here's a glorious early TV appearance of Bob Dylan singing the title song of this blog!
Nevertheless, the general opinion appears to be that 2009 was a pretty bad year, and it's hard to argue against that position when it comes to arts education funding.
In 2009, the Ford Foundation, the Dana Foundation, and the Wallace Foundation either ended their arts education programs entirely or reduced them significantly.
Ford made final grants to its cohort of arts education grantees across the country.
Dana just announced that it is ending its support for teaching artist training. That being said, Dana will continue to support arts education as part of its brain research program.
The Wallace Foundation reduced its overall footprint significantly by laying off somewhere around a third of its staff, including the elimination of two senior positions directly related to arts learning and one related indirectly. While Wallace is expected to continue making select grants in arts learning, including renewals to some existing grantees, the explosive growth in position and influence witnessed in the past four years in arts education appears to have ended by practically all accounts. The saving grace here is that my friend Daniel Windham remains at Wallace. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out at Wallace.
It is what it is--the times they are a-changin'.
And yes, the times are always a-changin', and will change again. So, I am not all gloom and doom on the fifth day of this new decade, but feel it's important to take note of the losses of 2009 and hope that 2010 will bring some new actors to the national and regional funding stage.
And, if you want the real deal, here's a glorious early TV appearance of Bob Dylan singing the title song of this blog!
Happy New Year!
I hope that everyone who visits Dewey21C had a lovely holiday. Me? I went off the work grid for a good ten days. It was a nice rendering of a professional "flat line."
So, now, it's back to work in 2010!
David Byrne, musician, composer, band leader, music label entrepreneur, etc., posted a blog on his web site in mid-December taking a look at excesses in spending among major arts institutions and proposed that the government portion of support for such institutions go to arts in schools instead. Byrne also made a pitch for creativity in schools, while asking for arts education to be a little less tied to the canon of "great works."
It's an interesting thought. Let's get take the government support for art by "dead guys," and give it to school systems for arts education.
I wonder if Mr. Byrne is considering this proposal only for art museums, symphony orchestras, opera companies, etc., you know, the major cultural organizations. Has he also considered that many of the organizations that present him also receive government support?
The amount of government support for arts in America is dwarfed by support for public education. Let's look at a couple of yard sticks: the stimulus funding for the NEA totals $50 million dollars; the stimulus funding for the USDOE totals $100 billion. The budget for the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs is over $120 million; the budget for the New York City Department of Education is over $18 billion.
The tiny budget of the NEA or NYSCA, relatively speaking, isn't going to do very much up against the vastly larger education budgets of our public school systems.
Making it an "either or" situation exposes a bit of a tin ear for Byrne when it comes to the relationships between cultural organizations and public schools. Cultural organizations are part of the fabric of arts education in schools across America. Setting up a situation where you take away money from one to support the other would place cultural organizations at odds with schools.
As for Byrne's point about "dead guys" versus living artists, it's a bit of a mixed message, as opera companies employ living artists and art museums also exhibit works by living artists I gather he's talking about repertoire. Opera companies, performing arts centers, symphony orchestras, etc., also commission and perform works by living artists, although the amount of this activity is in the distinct minority of what they present overall.
Okay, enough of my thoughts on the substance of David Byrne's most recent blog. You get the point.
I do have to say that I love his blog overall (just not this entry!). It's a wide ranging, big opinion type of blog from one of the more interesting artists of the past 25 years.
It's great to see him take up this issue, the issue of arts education I mean, and while he is clearly well intentioned, I do so wish he was just a bit better informed.
I would love to get a bit of time with him to talk about the issue of competing interests in K-12 public education and the ways in which his desire to advocate for arts education could hit the right instead of wrong notes.
I hope that everyone who visits Dewey21C had a lovely holiday. Me? I went off the work grid for a good ten days. It was a nice rendering of a professional "flat line."
So, now, it's back to work in 2010!
David Byrne, musician, composer, band leader, music label entrepreneur, etc., posted a blog on his web site in mid-December taking a look at excesses in spending among major arts institutions and proposed that the government portion of support for such institutions go to arts in schools instead. Byrne also made a pitch for creativity in schools, while asking for arts education to be a little less tied to the canon of "great works."
A $14 million bailout for the opera is coming from the county, as the LA city government is called. The opry folks need that $20 million this week... so, reach into your pockets, opera fans. What makes this situation notable is not the amount of money -- movies often cost a lot more than $32 million to produce -- but the fact that the audience will be so small, and that the state is footing part of the bill.
However this mess ends up, my thoughts are that maybe it's time to rethink all this museum, opera and symphony funding -- and I refer mainly to state funding. A bunch of LA museums just got a bailout from LA real estate king Eli Broad, and that's great, but I suspect there will be county money involved there somewhere too. I think maybe it's time to stop, or more reasonably, curtail somewhat, state investment in the past -- in a bunch of dead guys (and they are mostly guys, and mostly dead, when we look at opera halls) -- and invest in our future. Take that money, that $14 million from the city, for example, let some of those palaces, ring cycles and temples close -- forgo some of those $32M operas -- and fund music and art in our schools. Support ongoing creativity in the arts, and not the ongoing glorification and rehashing of the work of those dead guys. Not that works of the past aren't inspirational, important and relevant to future creativity -- plenty of dead people's work is endlessly inspiring -- but funding for arts in schools has been cut to zero in many places. Maybe the balance and perspective has to be redressed and restored just a little. Plus, there are plenty of CDs and DVDs of the dead guys out there already, should one be curious.
It's an interesting thought. Let's get take the government support for art by "dead guys," and give it to school systems for arts education.
This is another interesting thought, one that I have had myself from time-to-time. The problem is, it comes from a terrible position or culture of scarcity. Is this the best we can demand for our kids??
I sense that in the long run there is a greater value for humanity in empowering folks to make and create than there is in teaching them the canon, the great works and the masterpieces. In my opinion, it's more important that someone learn to make music, to draw, photograph, write or create in any form than it is for them to understand and appreciate Picasso, Warhol or Bill Shakespeare -- to say nothing of opry. In the long term it doesn't matter if students become writers, artists or musicians -- though a few might. It's more important that they are able to understand the process of creation, experimentation and discovery -- which can then be applied to anything they do, as those processes, deep down, are all similar. It's an investment in fluorescence.
I wonder if Mr. Byrne is considering this proposal only for art museums, symphony orchestras, opera companies, etc., you know, the major cultural organizations. Has he also considered that many of the organizations that present him also receive government support?
The amount of government support for arts in America is dwarfed by support for public education. Let's look at a couple of yard sticks: the stimulus funding for the NEA totals $50 million dollars; the stimulus funding for the USDOE totals $100 billion. The budget for the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs is over $120 million; the budget for the New York City Department of Education is over $18 billion.
The tiny budget of the NEA or NYSCA, relatively speaking, isn't going to do very much up against the vastly larger education budgets of our public school systems.
Making it an "either or" situation exposes a bit of a tin ear for Byrne when it comes to the relationships between cultural organizations and public schools. Cultural organizations are part of the fabric of arts education in schools across America. Setting up a situation where you take away money from one to support the other would place cultural organizations at odds with schools.
As for Byrne's point about "dead guys" versus living artists, it's a bit of a mixed message, as opera companies employ living artists and art museums also exhibit works by living artists I gather he's talking about repertoire. Opera companies, performing arts centers, symphony orchestras, etc., also commission and perform works by living artists, although the amount of this activity is in the distinct minority of what they present overall.
Okay, enough of my thoughts on the substance of David Byrne's most recent blog. You get the point.
I do have to say that I love his blog overall (just not this entry!). It's a wide ranging, big opinion type of blog from one of the more interesting artists of the past 25 years.
It's great to see him take up this issue, the issue of arts education I mean, and while he is clearly well intentioned, I do so wish he was just a bit better informed.
I would love to get a bit of time with him to talk about the issue of competing interests in K-12 public education and the ways in which his desire to advocate for arts education could hit the right instead of wrong notes.
