The president's budget no longer contains arts education as a discrete item, as has been the practice for a number of years. Instead, presumably, arts education is rolled into total USDOE spending--the budget specifics to be determined administratively at the USDOE.

For some, it's a non-issue: this is the way the National Endowment for the Arts has gone about it for years. For others, it's a giant issue, on the symbolic level as well as the practical. It is feared that if arts education doesn't have a line item in the federal budget, then it is given less recognition. More importantly, if it is no longer a line item, it may just disappear entirely, if not today, tomorrow.

Then again, there are those who believe that its a way of protecting arts education within the overall budget of the USDOE, for it no longer has to be reauthorized on a regular basis. As long as the administration at the USDOE is supportive, arts education can be protected from the political winds.

For most arts advocates, there's not a hell of a lot to fight for on the federal level, except NEA and USDOE funding. There's the occasional policy issue such as artist visas, white space, etc., but most of what is known as federal advocacy focuses mainly on the NEA and USDOE/Arts Education.

In my book, I think it's worth advocating for the arts education line item. Even though it places the line item in a precarious position on an annual basis, it serves as one of the few organizing principles for advocacy on a national/federal basis.

The less there is to work on, to organize around, the weaker the field becomes. What I would urge all of us to consider, is the question of how this organizing principle becomes a starting point, rather than the sum total.

And of course, it would be great to hear some more specifics about this from the administration. As soon as I gather something new, I will shoot it out via Dewey21C.

Education reform is a big churn. Trends come and trends go. Perhaps the best read on this, if you are so inclined, is Diane Ravitch's book, Left Behind, A Century of Battles Over School Reform.

Lately, the big trends have been about the infusion of forces and ideas outside of educational practice into schools. It's charters, free market, value added assessment, merit pay, vouchers, generals as education leaders, mayors as education leaders, lawyers as education, etc.

One of the things that is most interesting about all this is that so much of the discussion has left behind those directly engaged in the practice of education, namely teachers. Part of the reason for this is that those who are pushing the reform du jour view teachers and their unions as the problem. Much of the reform is about getting rid of these unions.

So, along comes the LAUSD and a program that seeks to place 30 of its lower performing schools into management outside of the district. The selection of such management was through a competitive application process led by the school board. I think that most people assumed that the vast majority of those selected by the school board would be charter operators. There are, after all, a number of high profile operators in LA, including Green Dot.

The real surprise here is that 22 of the 30 schools ended up going to management that will be led by the teachers themselves. The local chapter of the teachers union worked closely with its national union, the AFT, to develop proposals that ended up as winners.

This development may just be a game changer in that it has potential to reframe the school reform debate. Of course everything will be in the execution: the new management structures led by the teachers will have to be successful. I believe that what will be required for such success will reshape the role and perception of teachers and their unions.

Of course there are the to be expected complaints that the selection process was rigged, in that the union used its political influence to sway the school board. What I do know, is that there are indeed some extraordinarily talented people, teachers and their union reps, who put together the winning proposals.

Is it possible that teachers can also set up school management structures? Many will find this prospect laughable.

Nevertheless, this was Al Shanker's vision for charter schools. Not many people know this, but it was indeed Al Shanker who dreamed up the idea, only his idea for charters was teacher centered.

Los Angeles Times: LA Teachers Gain Control of 22 Campuses in Reform Effort

In an unlikely victory, groups of teachers, rather than outside operators, will run the vast majority of 30 campuses under a controversial school reform effort, the Los Angeles Board of Education decided Tuesday.

A good many of you must have read the article in yesterday's Los Angeles Times that looked at a Burbank parochial school that had chosen to let go of licensed theater faculty in favor of bringing in actors to teach theater.

Facing enrollment drop, Burbank Catholic school gets

creative in staffing theater program

By outsourcing teaching positions to professional actors, Providence High has revitalized its drama program, and officials say it could become a model for other financially strapped schools.

Not only is this a touch subject, it's also a subject that takes on a very different shape depending on the circumstances of the individual school or school system.

A few thoughts:

1. There are not a ton of certified teachers in theater or dance. The last I looked, the ratio of certified theater teachers to students in the NYC public schools, for example, was about one  to every 13,000 students. Nationwide, there were not enough certified theater or dance specialists teaching to have established a adequate sample size for NAEP Arts 2008 to report out on dance and theater.
2. Regardless of the specific arts discipline, at a minimum, most of the certified arts teachers I have met are somewhat suspect of the role teaching artists and organizations play in schools. Their suspicion tends to focus on teaching artists replacing certified arts teachers (the outsourcing issue).
3. Ideally, arts education is delivered best by a powerful combination of certified arts teachers, classroom teachers, and cultural organizations, including teaching artists.
4. Where there are not enough certified arts teachers available, it would be hard to fault a school that chooses to hire teaching artists as an alternative.
5. An expansion of outsourcing as described by the LA Times piece will only serve to balkanize the arts education field.
6. The certified arts teachers are getting it from all sides. Not only do they have to worry about a narrowing of the curriculum in an accountability zeitgeist run amuck, but they are being attacked as all certified teachers are for the quality of their training and performance while facing the growing issue of alternative certification. And yes, they are greatly concerned about teachers being asked to teach the arts who are licensed in other subject areas.

I have often defended the arts field to certified arts teachers as being extremely supportive of the vital role of the certified arts teacher. Moreover I have argued that the arts field has gone to bat over time for the hiring of certified arts teachers. As a matter of principle, most people I know believe that when there is a certified arts teacher, the more likely it is that the school will partner with the cultural field.

The article was not very well put together, I am afraid. It doesn't really do much but give the impression that any actor can teach K-12. In that respect, it does a terrible disservice to the field of educational theater. It may very well be that the two actors that the schools have hired are highly trained, but there is no mention of that in the article.

Each actor may be half the price of the licensed theater teacher (and yes, the article only implies that there were licensed theater teachers previously), but we have no idea about frequency of instruction or anything else. What was lost with the changeover, I guess is what I would have liked to have read. And yes, I get it, I do, these are tough times. That being said, it is a slippery slope from the exigent situation to the norm.

Shall we declare it open season on certified arts teachers?

All the time, I run into people in the arts field who ask me to explain exactly what the hell is going on with K-12 education. Between vouchers, choice, turnaround, merit pay, alternative certification, race to the top, race to the bottom, AYP, value-added assessment, process-driven goals, backwards-mapped curriculum, and more, trying to get a handle on what all this means can conjure up one gigantic state of cognitive dissonance.

So, let's say you can only deal with one book that will explain it all.

This is the book for you.

Run, don't walk to your nearest computer and order it from amazon.com.

The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, by Diane Ravitch.

For this past year's Grantmakers in the Arts Conference, a few people were asked to write short think pieces to accompany GIA's arts education pre-conference. The following is the piece that I wrote about parent engagement:


I've been hearing about the power of parents in education since I started as a teaching artist in 1985, and in 2009 you still hear it all the time, at meetings, conferences, in reports, etc. It's one of the proverbial "legs of the table." Certainly, we have from time-to-time witnessed engaged parents advocating with school and district leaders and elected officials; raising money for the arts; creating arts councils within their PTA's; and more.

As the arts education field has matured and while the challenges to the goal of a quality arts education for all students have become more complex and dynamic, increasingly we are thinking about how parent engagement can be taken to the next level. It's the right thought as we cannot do the job on our own.

That being said, you have to wonder: can we build that parent army that many of us have dreamed of? Can we build that army of parents, who are well informed, skilled, organized, with a structure that is sustained from year-to-year, making the difference in the individual school and as a collective, throughout a school district or region?

Or is it an really illusory?

I do wonder whether this field of arts education will ever be able to mount the effort necessary to harness this parent power we are all so sure about. Until then, it's really just a premise, a bold vision for expanding arts education advocacy to a putative natural constituency. Somehow, in the moment, it always sounds so simple. That's right, parents are key. It just rolls off the tongue. It's a bit like solar power. We know it's out there. We know it has tremendous potential, even if the sun doesn't always shine. However, it just doesn't seem to get off the ground really. Not withstanding a neat solar powered radio here and there. Is it the same for parent engagement?

So, what is it exactly that's holding us back? Well, first off, there's a constituency issue that is rarely discussed. I believe it's extremely difficult to be successful in such work unless the parents are to a large degree your natural constituency. But think about it, for your average bear arts and arts education organization, who is the constituency? The organization and its audience? The teaching artists? The schools? The students? The parents? While I hate to appear to reductive when it comes to audiences, I think it's an deeply important question to pursue.

When organizations advocate for arts education in the schools, who is their constituency? Well, if it's a service organization, it's their membership. Who is their membership? Orchestras? Opera companies? Arts organizations? Artists? Funders? Making the leap to advocating on behalf of families, which is the most direct pathway to parents, is indeed more complicated than one might expect. And, while there are exceptions that prove the rule, the arts and arts education fields have been slow to develop relationships with organizations that have parents, teachers, or children as their true and natural constituents. When one looks through the lens of genuine advocacy, it's impossible to dodge this issue. A case in point: I have seen this issue haunt us, as school district and other government officials have sometimes reduced by arts and arts education organizations as self dealing.

The work requires significant organization capacities: you've got to have a staff and an enterprise that is skilled in organizing. You've got to have all sorts of structures in place, including key pieces of information/data, goals, trainers and training programs, and the necessary mechanisms to support all of this. You have to provide various entry points for those who want to join in when it's time to send an email, all the way up the chain to those who are willing to march if necessary. In and of itself, it's a major undertaking in terms of developing the knowledge base of very busy people with divergent interests, backgrounds, and cultures, even if, presumably, they are united by a common interest in the success and well being of their children and the role the arts play in this regard success.

Of course, let's not forget, you have to have funders, and a board that can support and help provide resources in this area.

You must be able to reach parents directly, and unfortunately, it's not as simple as partnering with the local PTA. In some cities, such as New York, there is no city-wide PTA, although yes, most schools have functioning PTAs. You may very well have to go school-by-school. All of this raises the very big question of exactly how to you structure your communications with parents. If all of the above weren't enough, let's add the true rocket fuel to the mix: parent mobility. Parents, grandparents, guardians, etc., and their movement from one school to another, compounded by moving upwards through grades, through school groupings such as elementary, middle, and high school, all underscored by the long understood trend of parent engagement declining fairly steadily from its highpoint in the early primary all the way to where it bottoms out in the high school grades.

So, even if you can muster all the capacity necessary to "build an army of parent advocates," the issue of sustainability is truly profound when confronted with the issue of parent, student, teacher, and administrator mobility.

This is all quite a bit to take on for arts and arts education organizations, as this arena is ultimately much more akin to political work than the delivery of arts education services: it is about organizing people. And, of course, the larger the school district(s), the taller the order.

So, what am I saying exactly? Well obviously, that moving from scattered success with parents as advocates to the next stage is just plain difficult. Am I saying that it can't be done? Nope, not at all. I do think that we need to get real and recognize the significant hurdles to the dream, many of which I've noted, some of which I've surely missed, for without an honest assessment of the challenges, we will never stand a chance of being successful.

And, when the conversation turns to why we still have so far to go after all the work of the past twenty or so years, I think it is important to focus on the key areas we have yet to really develop, for which parent engagement is a prime example.

This was sent along by the USDOE just yesterday:

ESEA Meeting on Arts Education Summary

Every once in a while I like to use a somewhat elliptical title. Today is a prime example. Some of you got it immediately, others were thinking "huh?"

So, let me explain.

Word is coming from all over the country about deep cuts to arts education. Some describe "blood on the floor." A fair number of people have been talking about fighting to ensure that the arts are not cut on a basis disproportionate to other subjects. This has been explicitly stated as the approach of the NYCDOE (in theory at least, since the principals can do whatever they please), and I have seen it on press releases coming out of other regions. The strategy seeks to establish some sort of fairness doctrine.

The problem here is that some subjects, like the arts and physical education, in urban school districts in particular, have been so overwhelmed by other interests for so many years that the proportionate cuts strategy will leave our children with very, very little at the end of the day.

After years of disproportionate cuts, arts education negative policies inherent in most of the accountability movement, and a panoply of other examples that are too numerous to list today, I think that the position of accepting proportionate cuts is a mistake.

While no one wants to be viewed as being unrealistic, out of touch, or god forbid hostile, we should be fighting for less of a cut to arts education rather than reductions that are proportionate to those in in other subject areas, particularly ELA and math, the two subjects the entire education-industrial-complex is built upon.

Perhaps then, we will end up with something along the lines of a actual proportionate cut or perhaps do a bit better, rather than a actual disproportionate cut that guts the fraction of resources allocated to arts eduction.

It's been a little while since the resident guest blogger on Dewey21C has given us an entry. A big snow day in New York provided the impetus for Jane to get some things off her chest. In a no-holds-barred entry, Jane speaks volumes about the things that trouble so many of us.--RK
*************************************************************************************************************

As I watch the blizzard obliterate the view from my home office window, I can't help thinking metaphorically about what's going on in our country. I urge you to read Kurt Andersen's powerful article in the Feb. 5, 2010 New York Magazine, to set the stage and the "given
circumstances."

Then read Diane Ravitch's stunning posts on Bridging Differences, Closing Schools Solves Nothing and after that, her Two Types of Superintendent for a crystal clear picture of some of what's going on in American education under the nefarious name of "reform."

Question: What kind of a chance does arts education have in the current political, social and yes, aesthetic environment?

Answer: In this atmosphere, the arts don't stand a chance to survive, let alone flourish. We have always had to fight for the arts in America and arts education in our schools. It seems to me that the odds of attracting and sustaining attention, attracting and sustaining support within the schools and their communities, and with those few funders who still think about arts education, are slim if not non-existent. There is so much noise, in the education "sector" alone, about test scores, competition for funds, turning schools around while racing "to the top," that there is no air left for thoughtful inquiry and study of what's actually going on in most of our schools in the arts or any other subject for that matter.

Under the current circumstances, with our brand of democracy struggling in an economy still on the brink of collapse, our narrow-minded obsession with data as a stand in for careful observation of human interaction, and the determination of our elected representatives to reduce complex and nuanced social and intellectual challenges and decisions into numerical certainties, we who fight for the arts as education have been effectively ambushed.

In a culture that appears to have lost its balance and keel, where there as yet is no counter-voice or movement to the Tea Party mania, nor to the unproved "logic," "fairness" or ruthlessness that take down, for example, 19 New York City public schools in one fell swoop, (the majority of which were comprehensive schools). The general public appears to ignore or shrug off our putting lawyers and businessmen (it was generals for a while) in charge of educational decisions and strategies that threaten to destroy an entire public school system. Our democracy needs rethinking and remaking, not a blitzkrieg.

Every day it seems to get worse, because hiding behind data, which is oh-so-malleable and easy-to-fix, are lies that cover-up the failure of the "new" and never-ending school "reform" policies. All the while our school districts burn through the stimulus monies, scorching the earth and desperately grasping at new handouts which by themselves, are way too small to serve all the states and all their districts and all their children. Tell me, when they run dry, (soon), where will this leave the states and districts and our children, and oh yes, the arts as education?

I've been through tough times over the years in my pursuit of all the arts for all the children in our schools, pre-K through 16. This is about the worst I've seen it because our democratic principles are wobbly and our current throwaway culture has warped our value system. The infrastructure and the American sense of brother and sisterhood is slowly disappearing behind a powerful blizzard that conceals a congress either timid or wallowing in the deceptive ability to just say "no" to everything and anything, and flaunt that nihilism as power.

Nobody seems to know what to do about all this, including our president. I certainly don't have answers other than to vote or regulate the current robber barons out of power, but when they are so rich they can buy their future, what is to be done? Be sure to read the articles, above...and see what you think.

Jane Remer
February 10, 2010
***********************************************************************************************************
JANE REMER'S CLIFFNOTES We are at another rocky precipice in our history that threatens the survival of the arts in our social fabric and our school systems. The timing and magnitude of the challenges have prompted me to speak out about some of the most persistent issues in the arts education field during the last forty-plus years. My credo is simple: The arts are a moral imperative. They are fundamental to the cognitive, affective, physical, and intellectual development of all our children and youth. They belong on a par with the 3 R's, science, and social studies in all of our elementary and secondary schools. These schools will grow to treasure good quality instruction that develops curious, informed, resilient young citizens to participate fully in a democratic society that is in constant flux. I have chosen the title Cliff Notes for this forum. It serves as metaphor and double entendre: first, as short takes on long-standing and complicated issues, and second, as a verbal image of the perpetually perilous state of the arts as an essential part of general public education. I plan to focus on possible solutions and hope to stimulate thoughtful dialogue on-line or locally.
************************************************************************************************************
Jane Remer has worked nationally for over forty years as an author, educator, researcher, foundation director and consultant. She was an Associate Director of the John D. Rockefeller 3rd Fund's Arts in Education Program and has taught at Teachers College, Columbia University and New York University. Ms. Remer works directly in and with the public schools and cultural organizations, spending significant time on curriculum, instruction and collaborative action research with administrators, teachers , students and artists. She directs the Capezio/Ballet Makers Dance Foundation, and her publications include Changing Schools Through the Arts and Beyond Enrichment: Building Arts Partnerships with Schools and Your Community. She is currently writing Beyond Survival: Reflections On The Challenge to the Arts As General Education. A graduate of Oberlin College, she attended Yale Law School and earned a masters in education from Yale Graduate School.
*************************************************************************************************************

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the arts field is leery of advocacy!

Here are a few choice examples, pun intended:

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

Allies in the International Education Arms Race

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are a few additional thoughts:

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

My three cents...

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

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

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

 

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

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

Artworks Logo RFP Here's the RFP: Artworks Design

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

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

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

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

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