Dewey 21C: July 2011 Archives
As part of the Obama Administration's Champions of Change, Winning the Future Across America initiative, a series of videos have been posted on Whitehouse.gov, featuring a number of arts and education leaders from across America.
Here's my favorite: Ramon Gonzalez, Principal of MS223, in The Bronx. From our nation's poorest congressional district, has risen a school leader who gets the importance of the arts, as part of a sound and basic education.
Here's Ramon. And after you're done with this, head on over to Whitehouse.gov, to hear from colleagues such as Gigi Antoni,
Closing the Achievement gap with Arts Programming, Ramon Gonzalez.
Here's my favorite: Ramon Gonzalez, Principal of MS223, in The Bronx. From our nation's poorest congressional district, has risen a school leader who gets the importance of the arts, as part of a sound and basic education.
Here's Ramon. And after you're done with this, head on over to Whitehouse.gov, to hear from colleagues such as Gigi Antoni,
Closing the Achievement gap with Arts Programming, Ramon Gonzalez.
Talk about jumping off the page. Not to mention jumping out of your seat.
But rapidly, one realizes what is being circulated here as an "opportunity" is not quite what it seems to be. Read the guidelines.
Last week, the USDOE issued an RFP, for a nation-wide arts education project. One grant will be made and there is a month to turn around the application. The grant award: $6 million plus.
Now this is what is known as a wired-in project. As long as we're using the vernacular, let me close by saying this is one bad larry!!
Wired-in? For who, you might ask.
Anyone want to guess?
But rapidly, one realizes what is being circulated here as an "opportunity" is not quite what it seems to be. Read the guidelines.
Last week, the USDOE issued an RFP, for a nation-wide arts education project. One grant will be made and there is a month to turn around the application. The grant award: $6 million plus.
Now this is what is known as a wired-in project. As long as we're using the vernacular, let me close by saying this is one bad larry!!
Wired-in? For who, you might ask.
Anyone want to guess?
Arts in Education National Program
Deadline
August 15, 2011
Ages Served
Any
Maximum Award
$6,654,000
Sponsoring Organization
U.S. Department of Education
URLwww.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/07/14/2011-17756/applications-for-new-awards-arts-in-education-national-program#p-8Short Description
The Arts in Education National Program supports national level high-quality arts education projects and programs for children and youth, with special emphasis on serving students from low-income families and students with disabilities.
Eligible applicants are national non-profit arts education organizations supported by staff or affiliates at the state and local levels. Organizations must have a demonstrated history of advancing high-quality arts education and arts integration for arts educators, education leaders, artists, and students through professional development, partnerships, educational programming, and systemic school reform.
One $6,654,000 grant is available; applicant must demonstrate that the project for which it seeks funding will provide services and develop initiatives in multiple schools, school districts, and communities throughout the country.
Geographic Eligibility
National
With today's NY Daily News article about the New York City Department of Education's arts assessment program, I thought I would update and repost this entry from a few month's back.
Let me start with some new thoughts and then segue right into the original entry.
I was a member of the NYS Regents Task Force that helped to develop the assessment program for principal and teacher effectiveness in New York State, a program mandated by New York State law and paid for by the Feds, through Race to the Top funding. What we are talking about here is using measurements, including test scores, to evaluate educators for tenure, potential performance bonuses, and for potential firing. In essence, its the new super fuel that for the high stakes accountability torture chamber.
The assessment program has been moved forward by the NYS Board of Regents. But, if you would like to read from the dissenting opinion of Regent Roger Tilles, click here. You won't be sorry.
There was a point in one of the Task Force subgroup meetings where Task Force members started to reveal their discomfort with much of what was developing. My take is that the discomfort was always there, but unspoken early on, for people did not want to appear as contrarians to the task at hand. In other words, the initial conversations about the work focused on the basic role of evaluation in teaching and learning and omitted the political role of evaluation. Let me try one more time!: the role of the Task Force was to develop something that could be used as a formal tool to get rid of "bad" educators.
Little by little questions started to emerge about how the Task Force's work was developing, including practicality, need for pilot testing, timelines that were shortened mid-stream, and more. At one point, a consultant for the Task Force express some frustration, essentially stating that she didn't understand the misgivings of certain members, for after all, assessment is a basic part of teaching and learning. At least one response to that statement was: look at the newspapers and what is being said about the role of these teacher evaluations. It is political, not educational.
So, there you have a greater backdrop to the creation of assessment tools in this decade. There are two realms in which student and teacher assessment live: the realm of the educational and the realm of the political. Imagine a Venn diagram. One circle is educational and the other is political. In a Venn diagram, you are always looking for what resides in the shared space between the two circles. And for this diagram, what is in the shared space?
Have you heard of Campbell's law?
Have you heard about the cheating scandals in Atlanta, which brought down Dr. Beverly Hall, 2009 Superintendent of the Year.
And, finally, I would like to add this bit of disturbing news: The UK is on the verge of jettisoning music as a core subject. Click here to read more. And dig this: the UK has one of the finest programs for assessing music learning int the world. If you test it they will come? Let's get real about that particular silver bullet theory.
Okay, I am not against assessment. The fact is that it is indeed a fundamental part of teaching and learning. The fact is also that many arts teachers are and have been assessing student learning for a long time. Read further and you will see that there are state-wide assessment regimes already in place for the arts. What I am saying is that we need to be on solid ground about the rightful role of testing as a fundamental part of teaching and learning and also recognize the political context that has hijacked the real value of assessment in teaching and learning. I think this is particularly important for the arts education field, we need to keep in mind the larger backdrop to our work.
_____________________________________________________________________________
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 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."
Let me start with some new thoughts and then segue right into the original entry.
I was a member of the NYS Regents Task Force that helped to develop the assessment program for principal and teacher effectiveness in New York State, a program mandated by New York State law and paid for by the Feds, through Race to the Top funding. What we are talking about here is using measurements, including test scores, to evaluate educators for tenure, potential performance bonuses, and for potential firing. In essence, its the new super fuel that for the high stakes accountability torture chamber.
The assessment program has been moved forward by the NYS Board of Regents. But, if you would like to read from the dissenting opinion of Regent Roger Tilles, click here. You won't be sorry.
A task force created by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards stated in their report: "Much of what is tested does count, but much of what counts cannot be tested."
There was a point in one of the Task Force subgroup meetings where Task Force members started to reveal their discomfort with much of what was developing. My take is that the discomfort was always there, but unspoken early on, for people did not want to appear as contrarians to the task at hand. In other words, the initial conversations about the work focused on the basic role of evaluation in teaching and learning and omitted the political role of evaluation. Let me try one more time!: the role of the Task Force was to develop something that could be used as a formal tool to get rid of "bad" educators.
Little by little questions started to emerge about how the Task Force's work was developing, including practicality, need for pilot testing, timelines that were shortened mid-stream, and more. At one point, a consultant for the Task Force express some frustration, essentially stating that she didn't understand the misgivings of certain members, for after all, assessment is a basic part of teaching and learning. At least one response to that statement was: look at the newspapers and what is being said about the role of these teacher evaluations. It is political, not educational.
So, there you have a greater backdrop to the creation of assessment tools in this decade. There are two realms in which student and teacher assessment live: the realm of the educational and the realm of the political. Imagine a Venn diagram. One circle is educational and the other is political. In a Venn diagram, you are always looking for what resides in the shared space between the two circles. And for this diagram, what is in the shared space?
Have you heard of Campbell's law?
Campbell's law stipulates that "the more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it was intended to monitor. Campbell warned us of the inevitable problems associated with undue weight and emphasis on a single indicator for monitoring complex social phenomena. In effect, he warned us about the high-stakes testing program that is part and parcel of No Child Left Behind.
Have you heard about the cheating scandals in Atlanta, which brought down Dr. Beverly Hall, 2009 Superintendent of the Year.
This from the Huffington Post:The 178 educators implicated in the Atlanta Public Schools' cheating investigation received letters in their mailboxes Friday from interim Superintendent Erroll Davis. The message: Resign by Wednesday, or get fired.
The announcement comes after Davis replaced four area superintendents and two principals as a result of the investigation into alleged cheating by teachers, revealed early this month. APS Human Resources Chief Millicent Few resigned Monday. Investigators accused Few of illegally ordering the destruction or altering of important documents that evidenced the cheating.
The report determined that teachers in at least 44 of the 56 schools had participated in various forms of cheating, including erasing and correcting wrong answers on students' answer sheets for mandated standardized tests.
And, finally, I would like to add this bit of disturbing news: The UK is on the verge of jettisoning music as a core subject. Click here to read more. And dig this: the UK has one of the finest programs for assessing music learning int the world. If you test it they will come? Let's get real about that particular silver bullet theory.
Okay, I am not against assessment. The fact is that it is indeed a fundamental part of teaching and learning. The fact is also that many arts teachers are and have been assessing student learning for a long time. Read further and you will see that there are state-wide assessment regimes already in place for the arts. What I am saying is that we need to be on solid ground about the rightful role of testing as a fundamental part of teaching and learning and also recognize the political context that has hijacked the real value of assessment in teaching and learning. I think this is particularly important for the arts education field, we need to keep in mind the larger backdrop to our work.
_____________________________________________________________________________
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 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."
Last night a small thread emerged on Facebook about the cover for Steve Reich's new CD on Nonesuch Records.
The cover is a graphic photo of 9/11, due to the fact the recording features Reich's work WTC 9/11.
What do you think? An outrage of something else??
Quickly, the FB consensus is that it is "repulsive." Me, I am not so sure about that.
I felt very strongly that in the months and years after 9/11, an industry emerged around it. It was to be found on refrigerator magnets, T-shirts, and all sorts of tschotske. Even worse, were the politicians who wrapped themselves in 9/11 rhetoric, to advance their careers (surprise), and even worse, get us into highly questionable wars. There was the media exploiting the events of 9/11 to sell copies. There were the Blackrock, Halliburtons, and more, who made innumerable amounts of money from the exploitation into commerce, of the events related to 9/11.
Is this, all that?
Along comes an artist, with a work directly related to 9/11, and the use of this particular image, one of terrible meaning and power, is used to represent the music. Is it for sales sake? I doubt it, for in reality, Steve's recordings are never go to sell all that much, unfortunately.
So, while there may be a debate about the use of this image, that has the remote potential to garner controversy and press beyond that of your average Nonesuch recording, in the end, the arts educator in me thinks that this is a learning opportunity/teachable moment. What does the piece of music say and why was this cover chosen? Are there images that should not be used in connection with art and commerce? Should artists seek to provoke? What is the responsibility of a corporation like Warner Music Group, which owns Nonesuch?
What do we want from our artists in terms of providing meaning to the world we live in?
And finally, for all those who feel that classical music lacks relevance, well, this one certainly is an exception, don't you think?
I felt very strongly that in the months and years after 9/11, an industry emerged around it. It was to be found on refrigerator magnets, T-shirts, and all sorts of tschotske. Even worse, were the politicians who wrapped themselves in 9/11 rhetoric, to advance their careers (surprise), and even worse, get us into highly questionable wars. There was the media exploiting the events of 9/11 to sell copies. There were the Blackrock, Halliburtons, and more, who made innumerable amounts of money from the exploitation into commerce, of the events related to 9/11.
Is this, all that?
Along comes an artist, with a work directly related to 9/11, and the use of this particular image, one of terrible meaning and power, is used to represent the music. Is it for sales sake? I doubt it, for in reality, Steve's recordings are never go to sell all that much, unfortunately.
So, while there may be a debate about the use of this image, that has the remote potential to garner controversy and press beyond that of your average Nonesuch recording, in the end, the arts educator in me thinks that this is a learning opportunity/teachable moment. What does the piece of music say and why was this cover chosen? Are there images that should not be used in connection with art and commerce? Should artists seek to provoke? What is the responsibility of a corporation like Warner Music Group, which owns Nonesuch?
What do we want from our artists in terms of providing meaning to the world we live in?
And finally, for all those who feel that classical music lacks relevance, well, this one certainly is an exception, don't you think?
Many, many times, I have been part of formal conversations that made their way around to the question of how we are identifying and supporting the talented and gifted children in the school systems.
My response to the question in its many variations has been unwavering: all children are talented. Are all children gifted? Well, define gifted, and for that matter define talented. The definitions are arbitrary and often are less about talent and gift, and more about class and the motivation level of parents.
Let's think a moment about the truly gifted. First of all, for those in the truly gifted category, let's make a small sample list: Einstein, Midori, Paul McCartney, Eugene O'Neill, Larry David, and Miles Davis. How's that sound? Gifted? You bet.
And, if and when such talents are identified, there is often a pathway for these talents. Which, by the way, are the sorts of talents that certain schools take credit for, but anyone that really believes these truly gifted were either created or significantly developed by formal schooling, well, I have a bridge that you might want to buy, cheap.
What is more, let's underscore the big question: how many are sitting in schools today with the most extraordinary gifts and talent, but are in fact, going unnoticed and unserved because the schools are too busy testing or being closed or are handcuffed to think that grade level in ELA and math is all there is.
It is also interesting to me, how many great talents don't fall along traditional/formal tracks associated with identification of gift and talent. Shall I name a few? Tom Waits. Steve Reich. The Kronos Quartet. Bjork. Jackson Pollack. I know, it arguable...
So, if the ability of educators to identify talented and gifted in the arts (and other subjects, I might add), is fairly limited, where does this leave us? Do you think this is all a bit of sophistry aimed towards a sort of deleveling?
It's not, really. But those of you who know me, probably can predict that I am heading to a statement about equity of access (and quality).
First, it's no secret that the younger the student, the more open they are to their imagination and a dynamic, natural creativity that schools and society tends to quash, year-by-year as the kids get older and progress in the schooling. Most people I know believe that schools are designed this way. What is more, the accountability movement has made matters worse, by squeezing play out of early childhood. It's a bit like stealing the ball in a baseball game. So, even where kids are most naturally dynamic in the way they think, express, and process, little by little, even early childhood is giving way to high stakes testing and drilling.
With schools designed to quash creativity and imagination, as kids get older and the grades rise, combined with a lack of access for many students and flat and antiquated notions of what talent and gift are, well, it doesn't leave us much choice but to ensure that every child, not some and not a few more, have access to a sound and basic education that includes quality arts at all grades. There should and must be a minimum level, for all kids, that recognizes the natural role the arts play in human development and the fact that we should be encouraging the imagination, creativity, and the internal and external agency that each child needs to develop in order to be healthy and ultimately productive.
So, let's keep the programs for the Talented and Gifted, which don't always include much in the way of the arts, while making sure that there is more than enough for all the students, even if someone feels they don't quite make the cut for Talented and Gifted programs.
My response to the question in its many variations has been unwavering: all children are talented. Are all children gifted? Well, define gifted, and for that matter define talented. The definitions are arbitrary and often are less about talent and gift, and more about class and the motivation level of parents.
Let's think a moment about the truly gifted. First of all, for those in the truly gifted category, let's make a small sample list: Einstein, Midori, Paul McCartney, Eugene O'Neill, Larry David, and Miles Davis. How's that sound? Gifted? You bet.
And, if and when such talents are identified, there is often a pathway for these talents. Which, by the way, are the sorts of talents that certain schools take credit for, but anyone that really believes these truly gifted were either created or significantly developed by formal schooling, well, I have a bridge that you might want to buy, cheap.
What is more, let's underscore the big question: how many are sitting in schools today with the most extraordinary gifts and talent, but are in fact, going unnoticed and unserved because the schools are too busy testing or being closed or are handcuffed to think that grade level in ELA and math is all there is.
It is also interesting to me, how many great talents don't fall along traditional/formal tracks associated with identification of gift and talent. Shall I name a few? Tom Waits. Steve Reich. The Kronos Quartet. Bjork. Jackson Pollack. I know, it arguable...
So, if the ability of educators to identify talented and gifted in the arts (and other subjects, I might add), is fairly limited, where does this leave us? Do you think this is all a bit of sophistry aimed towards a sort of deleveling?
It's not, really. But those of you who know me, probably can predict that I am heading to a statement about equity of access (and quality).
First, it's no secret that the younger the student, the more open they are to their imagination and a dynamic, natural creativity that schools and society tends to quash, year-by-year as the kids get older and progress in the schooling. Most people I know believe that schools are designed this way. What is more, the accountability movement has made matters worse, by squeezing play out of early childhood. It's a bit like stealing the ball in a baseball game. So, even where kids are most naturally dynamic in the way they think, express, and process, little by little, even early childhood is giving way to high stakes testing and drilling.
With schools designed to quash creativity and imagination, as kids get older and the grades rise, combined with a lack of access for many students and flat and antiquated notions of what talent and gift are, well, it doesn't leave us much choice but to ensure that every child, not some and not a few more, have access to a sound and basic education that includes quality arts at all grades. There should and must be a minimum level, for all kids, that recognizes the natural role the arts play in human development and the fact that we should be encouraging the imagination, creativity, and the internal and external agency that each child needs to develop in order to be healthy and ultimately productive.
So, let's keep the programs for the Talented and Gifted, which don't always include much in the way of the arts, while making sure that there is more than enough for all the students, even if someone feels they don't quite make the cut for Talented and Gifted programs.
Okay, I've been pretty quiet over the past few weeks. Many have interpreted this to reflect a winding down of Dewey21C as a result of my departure from The Center for Arts Education at the end of this month.
Well, that's not the case. There will be no winding down. I am going to continue Dewey21C and expand its focus to life-long learning, including of course, K-12 and higher education.
So, why have I been so quiet lately, even missing the three-year anniversary of Dewey21C?
Well, there's the transition from CAE to Mannes College The New School for Music, which created the feeling one usually has during a transition of being pushed and pulled in different directions at the same time. I am not complaining, mind you, just offering it as a reason why the space in my head and heart is just a bit less than usual.
Then, there is my Mom and Stepdad. One has nursing needs, the other dementia. That's been another factor which is one heck of a primer on American healthcare and culture.
And, there's more, but I won't bore you.
Now, before I get to Sarah Cunningham, let me list a few blogs that are on the way. And, while I am at it, I can also tell you that the next time I post, you will see a spiffy new design that Doug McClennan has put in place.
The Grand Illusion: The Promise and Perils of Technology in Education
The Key The Arts Learning Holds for Student Assessment
K-12 To Higher Ed: The Vital P-16 Sequence
UT&UG: Programs for Untalented and UnGifted
I am still working on an interview with Bob Morrison (hint, hint, Bob!), and am going to reconnect with Steve Tennen on an interview with him.
Today, I believe, is Sarah Cunningham's last day at the National Endowment for the Arts. Okay, I completely biased, for Sarah is my friend. And guess, what, CAE hasn't always gotten grants approved by the NEA, and she is still my friend! That tells you something, don't you think?
In so many ways Sarah was a very unlikely candidate for this position at the NEA. She wasn't an arts educator or arts administrator, in a strict sense. She also hadn't come out of a cultural organization. For the most part, these were the hallmarks of her predecessors and certainly what most people suppose would be the core of any such hire.
Sarah brought an openness and fresh point of view to the work that was initially suprising and ultimately refreshing. While I would imagine that there are some who would have preferred a more cut and dried administrator type, her training as a philosopher led to the sort of epistemological questions that this field needs to pursue.
While she has a strong background in visual arts (it doesn't hurt to have a father who is an artist), she often exhibited an ingenuous enthusiasm and interest in things both new and old that led me to question my own openness, and commitment to personal learning and renewal.
She's not going far, gladly, and it is certainly exciting to see her in a research role at The Virgina Commonwealth University's School of the Arts in Richmond. I am eager to see what she cooks up over there.
So, as my own current tenure hurtles towards conclusion and transition, I want to take the moment to thank Sarah for the fine work she has done, for being such a thoughtful and kind colleague, and for being someone who refused to become jaded or agency-like in her daily duties and overall way of being. I think this field has been fortunate to have Sarah Cunningham at the NEA.
Please join me in wishing her the best of luck and good fortune in her new position.
Click here to read Rocco Landesman's statement about Sarah's tenure.
Okay, out we go today with Sam and Dave's super swell song I Thank You:
Well, that's not the case. There will be no winding down. I am going to continue Dewey21C and expand its focus to life-long learning, including of course, K-12 and higher education.
So, why have I been so quiet lately, even missing the three-year anniversary of Dewey21C?
Well, there's the transition from CAE to Mannes College The New School for Music, which created the feeling one usually has during a transition of being pushed and pulled in different directions at the same time. I am not complaining, mind you, just offering it as a reason why the space in my head and heart is just a bit less than usual.
Then, there is my Mom and Stepdad. One has nursing needs, the other dementia. That's been another factor which is one heck of a primer on American healthcare and culture.
And, there's more, but I won't bore you.
Now, before I get to Sarah Cunningham, let me list a few blogs that are on the way. And, while I am at it, I can also tell you that the next time I post, you will see a spiffy new design that Doug McClennan has put in place.
The Grand Illusion: The Promise and Perils of Technology in Education
The Key The Arts Learning Holds for Student Assessment
K-12 To Higher Ed: The Vital P-16 Sequence
UT&UG: Programs for Untalented and UnGifted
I am still working on an interview with Bob Morrison (hint, hint, Bob!), and am going to reconnect with Steve Tennen on an interview with him.
Today, I believe, is Sarah Cunningham's last day at the National Endowment for the Arts. Okay, I completely biased, for Sarah is my friend. And guess, what, CAE hasn't always gotten grants approved by the NEA, and she is still my friend! That tells you something, don't you think?
In so many ways Sarah was a very unlikely candidate for this position at the NEA. She wasn't an arts educator or arts administrator, in a strict sense. She also hadn't come out of a cultural organization. For the most part, these were the hallmarks of her predecessors and certainly what most people suppose would be the core of any such hire.
Sarah brought an openness and fresh point of view to the work that was initially suprising and ultimately refreshing. While I would imagine that there are some who would have preferred a more cut and dried administrator type, her training as a philosopher led to the sort of epistemological questions that this field needs to pursue.
While she has a strong background in visual arts (it doesn't hurt to have a father who is an artist), she often exhibited an ingenuous enthusiasm and interest in things both new and old that led me to question my own openness, and commitment to personal learning and renewal.
She's not going far, gladly, and it is certainly exciting to see her in a research role at The Virgina Commonwealth University's School of the Arts in Richmond. I am eager to see what she cooks up over there.
So, as my own current tenure hurtles towards conclusion and transition, I want to take the moment to thank Sarah for the fine work she has done, for being such a thoughtful and kind colleague, and for being someone who refused to become jaded or agency-like in her daily duties and overall way of being. I think this field has been fortunate to have Sarah Cunningham at the NEA.
Please join me in wishing her the best of luck and good fortune in her new position.
Click here to read Rocco Landesman's statement about Sarah's tenure.
Okay, out we go today with Sam and Dave's super swell song I Thank You:
