Dewey 21C: April 2011 Archives

"What we have to learn is what the human brain and ear thinks is beautiful," Mr. Mathews told Wired magazine in January. "What do we love about music? What about the acoustic sounds, rhythms and harmony do we love? When we find that out it will be easy to make music with a computer."

He's not a name that many in the music and/or art world know, but really, everyone should. Today, it's hard to imagine a time before digital music, but there was once a time when scientist-composers paved a new world. In this case it was Matthews writing the first software program allowing a computer to play music.

Max Matthews had a glorious career filled with invention, not only of software but of instruments such as electric violins, or the Radio Baton, and collaborations with other great colleagues like Boulez, James Tenney, John Cage, Edgard Varese, and others.

Max Matthews was a giant, who helped bring music into the 20th and 21st centuries, and whom all music lovers owe a great debt of gratitude. And a few more for you:

Samuel Beckett (Waiting for Godot): "But that is not the question. Why are we here, that is the question. And we are blessed in this, that we happen to know the answer. Yes, in this immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are waiting for Godot to come."

Margaret Spellings: "We measure what we treasure."

Diane Ravitch: "How do you measure friendship, character, integrity?" "...you do some things not for economic reward, and not because they are utilitarian, but because they are right."

More and more, I am hearing that since we teach what we test, the solution to equitable distribution of arts education, particularly at the urban school district level where the equity issue is most pronounced, is to create arts tests. No, not bubble-type standardized tests, but rather performance-based assessments that include a broad range of measures, comparable from school-to-school, from student-to-student.

If you want to see what this could look like, there is at least one state that has put much of this in place and you can click here to access the State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction's Arts Performance Assessments.

The Evergreen State's approach is an example of what the tests might look like in a regime that is relatively common across a state, and standards-based. That's one key component of what I might call the arts accountability movement. Actually, that's two components of the Arts Accountability Movement, in that it is both assessment and standards.

What if all the components were in place? Would it be an answer to those district leaders who have said they could not make the arts central unless there were measurable outcomes?

Let's look at the other pieces of the arts accountability puzzle.

Another component is a common curriculum, or at least a common curriculum framework. Let's take New York City's Blueprint in the Arts as a very good example of a curriculum framework for the arts. The Chicago Guide for Teaching and Learning in the Arts is yet another very fine example.

And that's not all, let's add a special diploma endorsement that would signify having taken a prescribed number of advance courses in the arts and having passed a special performance exam. Again, New York City has a good example here: The Chancellor's Endorsed Diploma. Last year, 857 high school students garnered the special endorsement, taking a test reputed to be tough even for those graduating arts colleges.

So, what would the ideal look like, if we one was to go the accountability route to ensuring the arts. And, do we really believe that such a program would flip the switch for ensuring that every child has access to a quality education that includes the arts.

In New York State there have been discussions about putting together the following pieces:

1. A common statewide curriculum, that could be modeled after the New York City blueprints or developed by notable organizations that would come together to create it.

2. A statewide Regents exam for the arts.

In New York State, there is a group of high school exams required to receive a High School Diploma. The Board of Regents are the governance body for education in New York State. To receive a regular high school diploma, students in New York State must pass, with a score of 65 or higher, five Regents Exams: Integrated Algebra (or Math A), Global History and Geography, U.S. History and Government, Comprehensive English, and any one science regents. To receive an Advanced Regents Diploma, students must also pass an additional Regents science exam, (Earth Science, Chemistry, or Physics), an additional math exam (Geometry, Algebra 2/ Trigonometry, or Math B), and a foreign language exam.

The Regents Exam for the Arts would be designed as a replacement exam, for example, you could replace the Global History exam with one of the arts exams, presuming that there would be an exam developed in all four of the official art forms (music, visual arts, dance and theater). N.B., the strategy is to implement the exam as a replacement exam, rather than as a test required of all students.

3. New Standards in the Arts. The new arts standards would be developed in a manner that was coordinated closely with the statewide curriculum, and the Arts Regents Exams.

4. State issued common assessments at key grades, most likely 4 and 8.

5. Requisite Professional Development. After all, you can't roll out such a test without support for teachers and administrators.

So, what do you think? Will this move the dial?

In New York City, you have most, if not all of the pieces in place. What's missing? Essentially, the only thing missing is a common set of assessments, which is being developed by the Department of Education as I type. Moreover, you've got an additional piece here: a citywide accountability report, ArtsCount, which seeks to inventory the provision of arts education across the system.

I recently had a conversation with some policy leaders about this approach. They had argued  that in an age of accountability that the arts would only advance by becoming part of the accountability movement. In other words, if you test, it will be taught. To bolster the argument,, it was also offered that any number of suburban superintendents were now asking for the state to develop such tools to help blunt the pressure to reduce the arts as state funding declines. The idea here is that in high performing districts, such pathways supported through increased testing would help protect the arts. Another way to look at it is that state testing legitimizes a subject. A special endorsement on the Regent's Diploma would give higher profile to the arts, recognize the serious of the subject area, and provide increased ammunition for superintendents to protect the arts from those who might advocate for cuts, including their school boards.

I posed this question to my colleagues: do you believe that such an approach would make a difference for the kids who currently receive little? I didn't get much of an answer to that question, but another scenario was proposed: that unless teaching and learning in the arts became something highly measurable, that arts education would decline. And that we shouldn't fear accountability.

For my money, while further development of formal arts assessments, endorsed diplomas, new curriculum frameworks, etc., would offer incremental benefits in both quality and equity, the real missing ingredient is leadership.

We don't offer ELA and math as optional subjects, do we?

Unless steps are taken that are based upon real leadership, meaning district, government, and civic leaders that are willing to stand-up for the arts, requiring the arts be taught, all the replacement exams in the world be be but another Waiting for Godot.

What would such leadership look like? Look no further than to Dallas, where Michael Hinojosa has publicly stated that he will not lay off arts teachers, even in the midst of terrible budget cuts. Look no further than Boston, where Carol Johnson makes sure that all school leaders know that the arts are no longer optional.

Here, leadership includes the area of instruction. The most impressive of the district leaders are not solely CEO's but instructional leaders as well. And, the leadership, a good friend of mine likes to say, is linked to action, not just exhortation from the bully pulpit.

Providing a sound and basic education, that includes the arts for all of our students will require leaders that are willing to take a stand, in other words, lead, instead of offering poor substitutes such as: "if we do it for the arts, we will have to do it for every subject."

A few weeks ago, President Obama offered some inspiring remarks about what he wants for his kids, the sort of remarks we heard on during the '08 primaries, but sadly, not much since. Nevertheless, I am glad to see this voice return on this, and other important issues such as the social safety net.

Relevance.

It's quite the loaded term in the arts and arts education fields, don't you think? I was once talking with two colleagues and the topic of jazz came up. One friend said that she didn't think that jazz was relevant. The other friend had a cow, as the saying goes, wondering exactly how such a statement could be offered.

To many in the arts, relevance is established through a transcendence of the art, that is too often in the mind (and heart) of the beholder or a shared by relatively small group of cognoscenti. Matters of popularity are relatively unimportant, for how can one possibly compare Justin Bieber to Miles Davis or Bach.

That was, in essence, what my other friend offered as a response to the question of relevance: that jazz is an expression of the human condition, that it feeds our souls, and enriches our lives. Thus, it is relevant in a way that transcends temporal matters such as box office sales (or whether or not anyone is listening). And, for that reason, it is worthy of government and private funding.

Does it sound familiar?

Today, there is a massing of challenges to the arts the likes of which we have not seen before, outside of the pure market forces which dispose of the lauded TV shows that fail to gain a big audience, or days gone by when entire forms like Vaudeville where killed by changes in taste and technology, even though the essence of Vaudeville lives on, having woven itself through many current forms.

I would bet that most people in the arts, if pressed, would say that the challenges are coming from conservative Republicans, who seek to defund the NEA, NEA, CPB, PBS, US Department of Education, and more. And while that may be true, it's a much more crowded and diverse field than many realize. You have Robert Reich and Paul Krugman (two of my heroes!), questioning the charitable status granted major arts institutions. To them, the major institutions are elitist, catering to tax breaks for the wealthy, hardly a charity.

You've got Bill Maher stating that the arts are "nice but not essential."

You've got the elimination of Grammy categories propelled by complaints from those in the record business who feel that the Grammy Awards are out of touch, as evidenced by Esperanza Spalding being selected over Justin Bieber for best new artist. In other words, those who run and heavily influence the Grammy Awards have questioned the relevance of less popular forms. And you know what, they've succeeded in getting quite a few categories either diminished or dropped from the awards program.

And don't forget, there's the Obama's deficit commission, Erkine-Bowles, which is calling for a limit on the amount someone can deduct from their taxes for the purposes of charitable contributions. While this proposal is not specifically focused on major arts institutions, a la Reich and Krugman, if enacted it would have seismic effects upon the entire non-profit sector, including the arts.

Let us not forget the great paradox that many feel about arts education. On one hand there are many in the arts world who want to see greater access to quality arts education in the public schools, based on a belief in the importance of such experiences in a child's life, while also believing that greater access leads to greater participation (butt's in the seats!). At the same time, what ultimately inhibits greater access to quality arts education is a matter of relevance. The great policy hurdle is really a matter of perceived relevance.

What exactly is there to do, when relevance is measured by many as whether or not tweens download a CD or watch a particular show on Nickelodeon?  I get it, I really do, that this issue is nothing new. That being said, it's quite the brew, when you have the Philadelphia Orchestra declaring bankruptcy, government funding on the precipice, long-standing models of dissemination and creation upended through the ever increasing pace of change in technology, where one day it's MySpace, the next it's Facebook, followed by who knows what! Add to that an NEA Chairman who arguably places the agency in harm's way by publicly musing about whether there is too much supply and not enough demand, and well, you've got to admit there's a dynamism at play here, the likes of which we have never quite seen before.

So, what is there to do about the fluidity of our times and the questioning of relevance?

Well, first, I think it's important to recognize that as a field, we haven't done a great job of communicating the importance, and yes, the relevance of the arts in America.

At the same time, It is not a bad thing, mind you, to admit that there are some things that we can do little about, which are the sorts of trends, changes in tastes, generational shifts that cannot be halted, even though there is always a call for that public service campaign to magically redirect a shifts or two in favor of a particular art form or genre.

I do find solace in many of the ways artists are ignoring the tracks laid down by previous generations, choosing instead to jump those tracks at will, while helping to redefine what we have come to know as for profit, non-profit, traditional, education, community, and service.

It seems to me that it is these artists who will reshape the context for what creates and defines relevance. As older organizations and structures fail, new will emerge, a bit like what happened after the 1988 fire at Yellowstone, where the scorched landscape was renewed in surprising and wonderful ways.

To help it along, we need to remain open rather than closed minded about change, encouraging experimentation, providing support, and finding thoughtful ways to reflect on the meaning and potential of the experimentation, as a living world of arts should, thereby engaging in what Maxine Greene calls "making meaning," for it is within such making of meaning that the reshaping of relevance will emerge.

Directly from the New York State United Teachers Conference, is a somewhat startling video, for its honesty, caring, and content devoid of caustic political rhetoric.

"...committed to deepening and broadening the educational options for children, and stopping this class system of subjects, which is only ours, and no where else I know of."

And of course, there's this quote:

 "somewhere a parent is explaining to a child why her music program has disappeared."

And, well, why I appreciate the sentiment very much, and feel deeply for those who will lose their programs, it remains even more troubling to me that prior to the economy going south in 2008, we had a historic growth in spending on public education, but still, too many kids in the New York City public schools received little, thanks to education policies that hurt rather than help to "broaden educational options for children." While I don't blame David Steiner for this, it should be clearly noted that it is not only an issue of cuts to come that will decimate programs like the arts, but many kids who were shortchanged even during a period of extraordinary resources.

There are many people across the country who have been waiting on tenterhooks to find out whether or not arts education funding at the United States Department of Education would be zeroed out. It includes funding for the Kennedy Center, VSA Arts, and the competitive grant programs: Arts Education Model Development and Dissemination and Professional Development for Arts Education.

I am very happy to report that the $25 million that the Senate had proposed, which is a cut from $40 million, is in the budget agreement.

A lot of people dug in to advocate for these programs, including most of the grantees and their partner schools. However, recognition must be paid for the leadership and exemplary work provided by Narric Rome, Senior Director of Federal Affairs and Arts Education, and Heather Noonan, Vice President for Advocacy, League of American Orchestras.

Of course, a big word of thanks must also be paid to all of the elected officials who supported arts education.

And, besides a big sigh of relief, I feel compelled to note that the work that went into advocating for these programs augurs well for the future, if we remain determined to build upon this moment, rather than recede back into the implementation of programs and nurturing of our individual organizations.

Stay tuned...