For additional information, see the i3 website.
main: March 2010 Archives
As much as people are disappointed with the way arts education is situated within the USDOE's Blueprint for ESEA reauthorization, most people I know inside and outside the arts are pleased with the proposal to rethink AYP . For those who don't get what I am talking about, click here for a quick and lively catch-up.
I was looking at a Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday, about the Administration's new ESEA Blueprint. Now, fair enough, it is WSJ after all, and that editorial board would prefer that all schools were charter schools and that universal vouchers were available for every single student. Nevertheless, what they said was instructive:
Creativity is much bandied about, and now we've got not only 21st century skills to add on, but those hoping to connect arts to "college and career readiness." Here, the question of exactly how the arts fit into college and career readiness is a big, big question that will not be answered by a simple statement to the importance of the creative sector and some not quite established linkage between that sector and arts education.
On Saturday I had another prismatic moment when I briefly heard former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings speaking about NCLB on NPR:
Fair enough. There's not a lot to argue with here. What gets tested gets taught--that's a more precise rendering that moves from Spelling's rather axiomatic presentation to a a simple statement of fact. The philosophers out there may choose to label it a truism.
While there appears to be more effort being placed than ever before on developing the next generation of K-12 assessments, which would hopefully pave the way for an arts assessment that would in turn help place the arts into the realm of real core subject (what gets tested gets taught), I wouldn't place any bets on it just yet.
First, we have the issue of a standardized test. Knowing what we know about the problems with standardized tests, would we really want one for the arts? And, yes, of course, we are really talking about more than an arts bubble test.
Okay then, even if we could establish the kind of performance-based assessments with valid and comparable-type measurements across for national, state, or district use, for all four key arts disciplines, as well as forms of arts integration (why make it easy!), it is quite a lift to establish the other key parts of the equation, meaning a set of standards and curricula that set the context for what is being tested across large numbers of students.
What we're talking about here is much more than what you find in the high school exit exams for the arts, which while being a good step forward, don't by a long shot create the structures necessary for what Spellings is talking about.
In entries to follow, I will take up the various efforts underway to advance assessment, but also take a good look a the Common Core Standards program through the National Governors Association and the Chief Council of State School Officers.
Of course, we could always just wait for America to become more enlightened about education policy...
I was looking at a Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday, about the Administration's new ESEA Blueprint. Now, fair enough, it is WSJ after all, and that editorial board would prefer that all schools were charter schools and that universal vouchers were available for every single student. Nevertheless, what they said was instructive:
We're glad to see the Administration would maintain annual math and reading tests in grades 3 through 8, and that school districts would continue to disaggregate results by race and other factors to prevent schools from hiding achievement gaps. But the proposal would also allow for less rigorous and more subjective assessments--such as how "creative" a child is--to measure student progress, which could easily become an accountability loophole."Creativity" is one of the pillars of the arts education rationale. While many would view the broadening of assessment to go beyond flat measurements in reading and math as a positive thing, well, what the WSJ tells us is that there's another side of those not quite convinced. A lot of people tell me, all the time, that no one doubts the importance of arts education, it's just a question of time, or money, or knowledge. But looking through a prism, there's a bit of a bend to all this. Not the least of which involves problems with terms like creativity and critical thinking being somewhat vague and difficult to measure.
Creativity is much bandied about, and now we've got not only 21st century skills to add on, but those hoping to connect arts to "college and career readiness." Here, the question of exactly how the arts fit into college and career readiness is a big, big question that will not be answered by a simple statement to the importance of the creative sector and some not quite established linkage between that sector and arts education.
On Saturday I had another prismatic moment when I briefly heard former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings speaking about NCLB on NPR:
Ms. SPELLINGS: Well, the important thing to know about testing is that it's worthless if they're not valid and reliable and comparable-type measures. So long as those criteria are accommodated, I'm a big proponent of the notion of what gets measured, gets done, and I think rounding out assessment systems with other subjects makes sense.
Fair enough. There's not a lot to argue with here. What gets tested gets taught--that's a more precise rendering that moves from Spelling's rather axiomatic presentation to a a simple statement of fact. The philosophers out there may choose to label it a truism.
While there appears to be more effort being placed than ever before on developing the next generation of K-12 assessments, which would hopefully pave the way for an arts assessment that would in turn help place the arts into the realm of real core subject (what gets tested gets taught), I wouldn't place any bets on it just yet.
First, we have the issue of a standardized test. Knowing what we know about the problems with standardized tests, would we really want one for the arts? And, yes, of course, we are really talking about more than an arts bubble test.
Okay then, even if we could establish the kind of performance-based assessments with valid and comparable-type measurements across for national, state, or district use, for all four key arts disciplines, as well as forms of arts integration (why make it easy!), it is quite a lift to establish the other key parts of the equation, meaning a set of standards and curricula that set the context for what is being tested across large numbers of students.
What we're talking about here is much more than what you find in the high school exit exams for the arts, which while being a good step forward, don't by a long shot create the structures necessary for what Spellings is talking about.
In entries to follow, I will take up the various efforts underway to advance assessment, but also take a good look a the Common Core Standards program through the National Governors Association and the Chief Council of State School Officers.
Of course, we could always just wait for America to become more enlightened about education policy...
Today in Baltimore is the first of three technical assistance sessions across the country for potential applicants to the USDOE's i3 program. I have written two different entries on i3, click here and click here to read them.
In a nutshell, the USDOE has set aside $650 million of Federal stimulus funds for education for this competitive grant program. The deadline for applications is May 11; and the "intent to apply" is "requested" by April 1st. The final guidelines were released on March 8th. There were relatively minor changes made in the final guidelines from what had been issued as a draft.
With i3 open to thousands of school districts on their own, and in partnership with non-profits of all kinds, I believe this is going to go down in the history books as the most competitive grant program of all time.
There are three different categories to choose from, so to speak, and a required private match of 20% cash or services in-kind. The private match is one of the changes that appeared in the final issued guidelines, in that a bit more leeway is being given on proposing private match in the application. The USDOE appears to be very bullish on the notion that i3 grantees will have little trouble making the private match.
So, here's the basic set of links for those who want to look a bit further at this opportunity. Most of the education pundits are predicting that the majority of grants will go to big league charter management organizations, like KIPP.
I will say, for those arts organizations that just submitted their AEMDD grants to the USDOE (the deadline for submission was this week), jumping right into i3 will test the mettle of any organization's program and development staff.
Application fatigue anyone???? The application package is 76 pages...
And in case you might feel like it's a mountain to climb, this will make you feel even worse: click here to read about The Gates Foundation giving planning grants to nine school districts and charter management organizations to help them win i3 grants.
Oh yes, and on single organization can win more than two grants totaling more than $55 million.
In a nutshell, the USDOE has set aside $650 million of Federal stimulus funds for education for this competitive grant program. The deadline for applications is May 11; and the "intent to apply" is "requested" by April 1st. The final guidelines were released on March 8th. There were relatively minor changes made in the final guidelines from what had been issued as a draft.
School districts and non-profit organizations in partnership with districts or consortia of schools can apply for the grants. To qualify, applicants must address one of four priorities aligned with the reform areas under the ARRA: teacher and principal effectiveness; enhanced data systems; college- and career-ready standards and quality assessments; and improving achievement in persistently low-performing schools. Applicants may get competitive preference points if their projects sufficiently address one or more of following priority areas: early learning; college access and success; serving students with disabilities or limited English proficiency; and serving rural district students.
Evidence is a formal eligibility requirement. The regulations have specific definitions for what constitutes "moderate evidence" and "strong evidence," and the i3 Fund will award three types of grants based, at least in part, on the level of evidence. Development grants (up to $5 million each) will require a reasonable hypothesis and be aimed at developing fresh ideas. Validation grants (up to $30 million each) will require moderate evidence and be aimed at validating and spreading promising programs to regional scale. Scale Up grants (up to $50 million each) will require strong evidence and be aimed at bringing proven programs to national scale.
With i3 open to thousands of school districts on their own, and in partnership with non-profits of all kinds, I believe this is going to go down in the history books as the most competitive grant program of all time.
There are three different categories to choose from, so to speak, and a required private match of 20% cash or services in-kind. The private match is one of the changes that appeared in the final issued guidelines, in that a bit more leeway is being given on proposing private match in the application. The USDOE appears to be very bullish on the notion that i3 grantees will have little trouble making the private match.
So, here's the basic set of links for those who want to look a bit further at this opportunity. Most of the education pundits are predicting that the majority of grants will go to big league charter management organizations, like KIPP.
I will say, for those arts organizations that just submitted their AEMDD grants to the USDOE (the deadline for submission was this week), jumping right into i3 will test the mettle of any organization's program and development staff.
Application fatigue anyone???? The application package is 76 pages...
And in case you might feel like it's a mountain to climb, this will make you feel even worse: click here to read about The Gates Foundation giving planning grants to nine school districts and charter management organizations to help them win i3 grants.
Oh yes, and on single organization can win more than two grants totaling more than $55 million.
i3 Update from the USDOE
The Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) is seeking peer reviewers. The deadline has been extended through April 1.
The i3 grant application and final priorities were announced March 8.
Pre-application technical assistance meetings for those considering submitting an application for i3 are being held in Baltimore on March 19, Denver March 24, and Atlanta March 30.
A fact sheet, slideshow, and a webinar in which Assistant Deputy Secretary Jim Shelton discusses the release of the grant application and final priorities are available.
i3 will support the development of path-breaking new ideas, the validation of approaches that have demonstrated promise, and the scale-up of the nation's most successful and proven education innovations.
National Education Policy you may ask, you didn't know there was one! Well, after reading the USDOE's A Blueprint for Reform--The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it struck me that this was the closest thing we will get to a national education policy. For those hell bent on seeing something like this in the arts realm (national cultural policy), it might not be a bad idea to read this Blueprint.
If you haven't yet heard, last week the administration released its plan for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the legislation most recently known as NCLB. It is 41 pages long and there is a lot to digest. I read through it earlier this week so that I could report back to the readers of Dewey21C.
While I am tempted to offer a full-blown analysis of the Blueprint, it's probably not a great idea as it would veer off into too many topics related to value-added assessment, turnaround models, common core standards, etc. See what I mean?
I do think it's important to note, as I have mentioned previously, that Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) is gone from the Blueprint. AYP was the engine of test score accountability in NCLB, that for so many reasons bothered so many people, not the least of which includes AYP having led to the narrowing of the the curriculum that has hurt the arts and other non-tested subjects. Except for the very lowest performing schools, the severe sanctions related to NCLB are absent from the Blueprint.
So, instead, let me give you a group of links to some articles to read on the subject of ESEA and I will then turn to the very thin slice related to the arts.
Click here for Ed Week's Administration Unveils ESEA Renewal Blueprint
Click here for NY Times: Administration Seeks Converts to Education Plan
Lastly, here's a piece from Ed Week that looks at the chances that the administration's proposal has of passing Congress.
Okay, what about the arts?
First off, the arts are mentioned four times.Take that as you will.
The arts are explicitly mentioned in regards to:
1. 21 Century Community Learning Centers. "Competitive grants will be available for districts and private organizations to implement in school and out of school strategies that provide students and, where appropriate, teachers and family members, with additional time and supports to succeed." What we talking about here is the Community School Model. "All programs will focus on improving student academic achievement in core academic subjects ranging from English language arts, to mathematics, and science, to history, the arts..."
2. Ensuring a Well-Rounded Education. "Grants may support either the development of new, promising instructional practices or the expansion of instructional practices for which there is evidence of improving student performance in one or more of these subjects, including English Language Learners, and students with disabilities, may include high quality professional development, better assessments, high-quality state- or locally-determined curricula aligned with state standards, or innovative use of technology."
"Priority will be given to applicants proposing to integrate teaching and learning across academic subjects, to use technology to address student learning challenges, and at the high school level, to work with colleges and universities to ensure that coursework is truly aligned with those institutions' expectations."
This area is where the Arts Education Model Development and Dissemination and Professional Development for Arts Education grants will be situated, although the grant program is being restructured.
That's about it for the explicit.
The next level would be in the thinking through of other possibilities for the arts. In this category it becomes a bit of an exercise in the age old art of shoehorning, but hey, isn't that just the history of arts education in America?
There are bits and pieces of things that we could be involved in, including the piloting and development of new standards, curricula, and assessment in the arts that could serve as important models for other subject areas.
There is a very small section on effective family engagement. Districts will be allowed to reserve funds for such endeavors.
Certainly for those wishing to create charter schools for the arts, or become a type of service provider to new charter schools that will replace, in part, the 5,000 or so schools required to close or significantly restructure as a result of this Blueprint, well this is an opening.
There is an opportunity for those who feel they can substantiate the role of the arts in what makes for college and career ready students.
Do you feel as if I am grasping a straws???
Okay, let me change the subject slightly. If this Blueprint moves forward, and even if it drastically modified as it winds its way through congress, what can you expect in the next couple of years?
1. A revisiting of standards, curricula, and assessment in all subjects across the country. In fact, in case you haven't heard, this train has already left the station through the Common Core Standards project of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
2. There will be a large scale attempt to tie teacher pay and tenure through performance on test scores.When you read about value added assessment, it is primarily about applying student growth measurements in ELA and Math to decisions on teacher quality.
3. There will be an increased focus on STEM subjects, and for those looking to add the arts in order to make STEAM, at least from the administration's perspective, that boat has left the docks. The USDOE had an opportunity to do something to help the arts as they have with STEM, but declined.
4. There will be an increased emphasis on principal and teacher development. This is another opportunity for the arts.
I will leave this topic for the time being. There's a lot more to say, which is probably better left to future entries. Anyway, it's starting to give me a headache and I have work to do!
For those who want to read the Blueprint, here it is, as well as links to a video by the President and a conference call with Arne Duncan, all on ESEA.
Blueprint
Listen to Arne Duncan's conference call with reporters.
Watch the President discuss the Blueprint.
If you haven't yet heard, last week the administration released its plan for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the legislation most recently known as NCLB. It is 41 pages long and there is a lot to digest. I read through it earlier this week so that I could report back to the readers of Dewey21C. While I am tempted to offer a full-blown analysis of the Blueprint, it's probably not a great idea as it would veer off into too many topics related to value-added assessment, turnaround models, common core standards, etc. See what I mean?
I do think it's important to note, as I have mentioned previously, that Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) is gone from the Blueprint. AYP was the engine of test score accountability in NCLB, that for so many reasons bothered so many people, not the least of which includes AYP having led to the narrowing of the the curriculum that has hurt the arts and other non-tested subjects. Except for the very lowest performing schools, the severe sanctions related to NCLB are absent from the Blueprint.
So, instead, let me give you a group of links to some articles to read on the subject of ESEA and I will then turn to the very thin slice related to the arts.
Click here for Ed Week's Administration Unveils ESEA Renewal Blueprint
Click here for NY Times: Administration Seeks Converts to Education Plan
Lastly, here's a piece from Ed Week that looks at the chances that the administration's proposal has of passing Congress.
Okay, what about the arts?
First off, the arts are mentioned four times.Take that as you will.
The arts are explicitly mentioned in regards to:
1. 21 Century Community Learning Centers. "Competitive grants will be available for districts and private organizations to implement in school and out of school strategies that provide students and, where appropriate, teachers and family members, with additional time and supports to succeed." What we talking about here is the Community School Model. "All programs will focus on improving student academic achievement in core academic subjects ranging from English language arts, to mathematics, and science, to history, the arts..."
2. Ensuring a Well-Rounded Education. "Grants may support either the development of new, promising instructional practices or the expansion of instructional practices for which there is evidence of improving student performance in one or more of these subjects, including English Language Learners, and students with disabilities, may include high quality professional development, better assessments, high-quality state- or locally-determined curricula aligned with state standards, or innovative use of technology."
"Priority will be given to applicants proposing to integrate teaching and learning across academic subjects, to use technology to address student learning challenges, and at the high school level, to work with colleges and universities to ensure that coursework is truly aligned with those institutions' expectations."
This area is where the Arts Education Model Development and Dissemination and Professional Development for Arts Education grants will be situated, although the grant program is being restructured.
That's about it for the explicit.
The next level would be in the thinking through of other possibilities for the arts. In this category it becomes a bit of an exercise in the age old art of shoehorning, but hey, isn't that just the history of arts education in America?
There are bits and pieces of things that we could be involved in, including the piloting and development of new standards, curricula, and assessment in the arts that could serve as important models for other subject areas.
There is a very small section on effective family engagement. Districts will be allowed to reserve funds for such endeavors.
Certainly for those wishing to create charter schools for the arts, or become a type of service provider to new charter schools that will replace, in part, the 5,000 or so schools required to close or significantly restructure as a result of this Blueprint, well this is an opening.
There is an opportunity for those who feel they can substantiate the role of the arts in what makes for college and career ready students.
Do you feel as if I am grasping a straws???
Okay, let me change the subject slightly. If this Blueprint moves forward, and even if it drastically modified as it winds its way through congress, what can you expect in the next couple of years?
1. A revisiting of standards, curricula, and assessment in all subjects across the country. In fact, in case you haven't heard, this train has already left the station through the Common Core Standards project of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
2. There will be a large scale attempt to tie teacher pay and tenure through performance on test scores.When you read about value added assessment, it is primarily about applying student growth measurements in ELA and Math to decisions on teacher quality.
3. There will be an increased focus on STEM subjects, and for those looking to add the arts in order to make STEAM, at least from the administration's perspective, that boat has left the docks. The USDOE had an opportunity to do something to help the arts as they have with STEM, but declined.
4. There will be an increased emphasis on principal and teacher development. This is another opportunity for the arts.
I will leave this topic for the time being. There's a lot more to say, which is probably better left to future entries. Anyway, it's starting to give me a headache and I have work to do!
For those who want to read the Blueprint, here it is, as well as links to a video by the President and a conference call with Arne Duncan, all on ESEA.
Blueprint
Listen to Arne Duncan's conference call with reporters.
Watch the President discuss the Blueprint.
And I am not talking about how to get the old school radiators in my office to stop all that loud banging when they heat up. (That is technically known as Steam Hammer.)
There's a funny look people get on their face when they use the line: let's turn STEM to STEAM! It's a cute little smile, like they just said something really clever. It's a fine line however, between clever and cute, at least as in "being a bit too cute."
It's the latest attempt to wedge the arts into something else. One day it's STEM the next day it's 21st Century Skills.
Okay, fair enough, I am guilty many, many times over for having deployed what I like the call the Malcolm X/Jean Paul Sartre approach to arguing for arts education: by any means necessary. And by that I mean that I would recite any argument that would have a shot at hooking a particular audience. Math test score improvement?I have one. ELA test score improvement? I have one. SAT score improvement? Got it. Direct link to increasing graduation rates...not so fast! Economic engine? I have one. Feel free to stop me.
So, what exactly is he talking about, some of you may wonder, if you're still reading today's mini-rant. Well, STEM is the movement around bolstering the following subjects in K-12 and post secondary education: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. These subjects are getting a lot of real (as in not fake) support from the Obama administration. This means money and policy. It's is an important component of the Race to the Top program and other funding programs coming out of the USDOE.
The idea here is for the arts to be incorporated as the fifth Beatle of STEM, hence STEAM. But, as you know, there was no such thing as a fifth Beatle, something Pete Best discovered the hard way after he was replaced by Ringo Starr.Even George Martin will tell you that there is no fifth Beatle.
So, what's my problem, and why is it taking me so long to get to the point, you may be wondering. Well, while I am all for making new friends with those in the STEM subjects, some of whom don't really need new friends nor new funding, nor new policy girding (see math!), I am not wild about forsaking the role of the arts as part of a well-rounded education. What about physical education, foreign languages, history, etc., other subjects the arts are also a part of? Do we want to be part of leaving them behind? Is this just another moment of us hitching our wagons to the latest thing?
There's a funny look people get on their face when they use the line: let's turn STEM to STEAM! It's a cute little smile, like they just said something really clever. It's a fine line however, between clever and cute, at least as in "being a bit too cute."
It's the latest attempt to wedge the arts into something else. One day it's STEM the next day it's 21st Century Skills.
Okay, fair enough, I am guilty many, many times over for having deployed what I like the call the Malcolm X/Jean Paul Sartre approach to arguing for arts education: by any means necessary. And by that I mean that I would recite any argument that would have a shot at hooking a particular audience. Math test score improvement?I have one. ELA test score improvement? I have one. SAT score improvement? Got it. Direct link to increasing graduation rates...not so fast! Economic engine? I have one. Feel free to stop me.
So, what exactly is he talking about, some of you may wonder, if you're still reading today's mini-rant. Well, STEM is the movement around bolstering the following subjects in K-12 and post secondary education: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. These subjects are getting a lot of real (as in not fake) support from the Obama administration. This means money and policy. It's is an important component of the Race to the Top program and other funding programs coming out of the USDOE.
The idea here is for the arts to be incorporated as the fifth Beatle of STEM, hence STEAM. But, as you know, there was no such thing as a fifth Beatle, something Pete Best discovered the hard way after he was replaced by Ringo Starr.Even George Martin will tell you that there is no fifth Beatle.
So, what's my problem, and why is it taking me so long to get to the point, you may be wondering. Well, while I am all for making new friends with those in the STEM subjects, some of whom don't really need new friends nor new funding, nor new policy girding (see math!), I am not wild about forsaking the role of the arts as part of a well-rounded education. What about physical education, foreign languages, history, etc., other subjects the arts are also a part of? Do we want to be part of leaving them behind? Is this just another moment of us hitching our wagons to the latest thing?
That quote comes from Diane Ravitch, who was presented at an American Enterprise Institute forum last Wednesday night in DC.
In addition, the program featured AEI's Rick Hess as moderator, and AEI's Mark Schneider, NEA President Dennis van Roekel, and the Boorkings Institution's William A. Galston, as panelists.
This was part of Diane's book tour, and of course, to have Diane present her ideas on school reform today, highly critical of the things that AEI has been supportive of, made for a great presentation, not to mention theater.
I was glad to be there in the audience. It was great too to see Sarah Cunningham, Arts Education Program Director from the other NEA, there as well.
For those wondering why you should watch this?? Well, if you would like to hear things that have concerned you about what's happening to arts education, as well as education in general, spoken out loud among major figures in education policy, while given context, coherence, and meaning, then there you have it, your answer.
Click here to view the full video from Wednesday night's forum.
About This Event
In addition, the program featured AEI's Rick Hess as moderator, and AEI's Mark Schneider, NEA President Dennis van Roekel, and the Boorkings Institution's William A. Galston, as panelists.
This was part of Diane's book tour, and of course, to have Diane present her ideas on school reform today, highly critical of the things that AEI has been supportive of, made for a great presentation, not to mention theater.
I was glad to be there in the audience. It was great too to see Sarah Cunningham, Arts Education Program Director from the other NEA, there as well.
For those wondering why you should watch this?? Well, if you would like to hear things that have concerned you about what's happening to arts education, as well as education in general, spoken out loud among major figures in education policy, while given context, coherence, and meaning, then there you have it, your answer.
Click here to view the full video from Wednesday night's forum.
About This Event
Online registration for this event is closed. Walk-in registrations will be accepted.
Diane
Ravitch, research professor of education at New York University and
renowned education historian, has long been at the forefront of
national discussions on education policy and politics. In her new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (Basic
Books, March 2010), Ms. Ravitch charges that school reform is on the
wrong track. She further argues that charter schooling and test-based
accountability will not improve American education and that there are
multiple reasons for low achievement, including the absence of a sound
and coherent curriculum. Her stark indictment and own change of heart
on many of these issues offers a chance to assess the assumptions and
evidence that undergird today's most visible education debates.
Please join us to hear Ms. Ravitch present the ideas in her new book. Immediately following her presentation, AEI resident scholar and director of education policy studies Frederick M. Hess will moderate a discussion featuring William A. Galston, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; AEI visiting scholar Mark Schneider, former national commissioner of education statistics and currently vice president at the American Institutes for Research; and Dennis Van Roekel, president of the 3.2-million-member National Education Association.
There are times when the little policy matters seems irrelevant. Who cares if a subject is declared "core" by your state department of education or USDOE?
Take a good look at this story coming out of Toledo. It is a rather stunning example of how a school district is proposing the elimination of all certified arts and physical education teachers and justifying it by declaring that the state doesn't deem the arts and physical education to be a core subject.
Why fight for arts education positive policies?
Your answer is in this new piece: click here to read The Toledo Blade's Plan to Cut Teachers Draws Flak.
Sometimes it is indeed a piece of policy that saves the day. In New York City, for example, there is a no lay off provision in the current teachers contract, which is expiring and in the midst of renegotiation. (The negotiation between the City of New York and the United Federation of Teachers has gone to arbitration.)
That no-lay off provision makes it difficult to simply layoff the arts and physical education teachers. It is not impossible, mind you, but difficult. In my book, that is the policy piece of the puzzle, that comes from the teachers contract, that is keeping arts teacher in place. Without it, I think you would be seeing in New York City what you are seeing in so many other parts of the country.
And, to make this a truly high spirited entry for the Friday before we turn the clocks forward, consider this: many of our public schools are being helped financially by stimulus dollars that will run out. What then?
On another subject: Monday is the deadline for submissions to the USDOE's Arts Education Model Development and Dissemination program. The last time this program was open to applicants, 14 awards were made out of approximately 74 applicants. That was two years ago. Based on conversations with colleagues, I would be willing to bet that the number of applicants to AEMDD could be five fold what it was two years ago. In the past, the complexity of the proposal and requirement of a quasi-experimental research model was a stumbling block for many prospective applicants. The economy has changed all that.
Take a good look at this story coming out of Toledo. It is a rather stunning example of how a school district is proposing the elimination of all certified arts and physical education teachers and justifying it by declaring that the state doesn't deem the arts and physical education to be a core subject.Why fight for arts education positive policies?
Your answer is in this new piece: click here to read The Toledo Blade's Plan to Cut Teachers Draws Flak.
Eliminating all art, music, and physical education teaching positions in Toledo's public elementary schools would erase more than one-third of a projected $30 million budget hole for the school system next fiscal year, officials said yesterday.Of course, this subject is being played out across the country, and will probably serve to be a measure as to how far we've come in building support for arts education.
Sometimes it is indeed a piece of policy that saves the day. In New York City, for example, there is a no lay off provision in the current teachers contract, which is expiring and in the midst of renegotiation. (The negotiation between the City of New York and the United Federation of Teachers has gone to arbitration.)
That no-lay off provision makes it difficult to simply layoff the arts and physical education teachers. It is not impossible, mind you, but difficult. In my book, that is the policy piece of the puzzle, that comes from the teachers contract, that is keeping arts teacher in place. Without it, I think you would be seeing in New York City what you are seeing in so many other parts of the country.
And, to make this a truly high spirited entry for the Friday before we turn the clocks forward, consider this: many of our public schools are being helped financially by stimulus dollars that will run out. What then?On another subject: Monday is the deadline for submissions to the USDOE's Arts Education Model Development and Dissemination program. The last time this program was open to applicants, 14 awards were made out of approximately 74 applicants. That was two years ago. Based on conversations with colleagues, I would be willing to bet that the number of applicants to AEMDD could be five fold what it was two years ago. In the past, the complexity of the proposal and requirement of a quasi-experimental research model was a stumbling block for many prospective applicants. The economy has changed all that.
Last month the American Teacher Magazine, which has a circulation of over one million, had a cover story on arts education.
They have followed-up on the cover story, with a series of pieces submitted by educators from across the country, about the value of arts education.
Click here to read the March/April edition of the American Teacher and its follow-up story on arts education in America.
I have been told by sources, that the response by teachers to the January/February cover story on arts education, was the largest in years, as measured by the number of letters written to the editor.
They have followed-up on the cover story, with a series of pieces submitted by educators from across the country, about the value of arts education.
Click here to read the March/April edition of the American Teacher and its follow-up story on arts education in America.
I have been told by sources, that the response by teachers to the January/February cover story on arts education, was the largest in years, as measured by the number of letters written to the editor.
When American Teacher put out the word in November that we were preparing a feature article on art and music education for our February issue, dozens of outstanding educators contacted us. Many told us how the arts enrich the lives--and improve the academic performance--of the students they teach. Here are just a few of the stories.
Although Niles North High School in Skokie, Ill., doesn't offer a course in music recording and engineering, Dan Gregerman teachers those skills anyway. Teaching students how to mix audio have become part of his electronic music class and vocal jazz program, the choral director says.
Let's welcome back Dewey21C's regular guest blogger, Jane Remer. Fresh off being honored by the New York City Arts Education Roundtable at its Face to Face Conference, she's got a swell entry on Diane Ravitch new book. As an intro, I want to point out something quite wonderful about Diane and her new book: it is extremely rare for a major league education policy leader to ever mention the arts. Diane points to the arts regularly through her book, and through her daily activities. And, now, so do people like Checker Finn. Let there be more who will acknowledge the arts when talking about education. Thank you Diane!
************************************************************************************************************
Originally Created As a Blurb for Diane Ravitch's Website; With Diane's Permission
Jane Remer's Cliffnotes: Diane Ravitch and The Renewal of the Great American School System
It is not unusual for historians, political figures, Supreme Court justices, party faithfuls and true believers of all stripes to change their minds in the middle of their career. It is rare, however, that a public figure with the stature of Diane Ravitch demonstrates the courage and chronicles the gradual mind-changing (and game-changing) process so that it is visible, "out-loud" and accessible to those within earshot and who follow her Bridging Differences dialogue with Deborah Meier. The Death and Life of the Great American School System is her latest in a long line of distinguished books, and I think it is not only an amazing accomplishment but a very important book. It must be read, widely.
I have worked for close to half a century in and with public schools and districts across the country. I have been a friend and colleague of many others who are deeply concerned with the quality and direction of American public education, e.g., John Goodlad, Seymour Sarason, Robert Stake, Harold "Doc" Howe, Frank Keppel, Howard Gardner, and David Perkins. My first book, Changing Schools Through the Arts, chronicled in great detail the hope, promise and serious obstacles to school change in a network of six urban U.S. school districts. I am reminded on a daily basis as I work in the schools how difficult it is to initiate, implement and most of all sustain change whether in one school or a large number.
What Diane's book teaches us, or at least reminds us, is the current notion that non-school people such as mayors, generals and lawyers should not be given the power and responsibility to run school systems in a functioning democracy. The research and results are plentiful about the problems, even when (and usually) none of the researchers agree with each other about the causes and results. But schools are complex, old fashioned entities, essentially social communities, and no one district, school or classroom is like another. Schools tend to be latest-fad addicted, always hoping for the holy grail to solve whatever the latest problem may be, and in a bureaucracy like a school system that never has enough patience, resources or field-based and grass roots intelligence to figure out how to move forward, there is rarely enough time dedicated to gathering stakeholders and evidence for support. Even then, school change is really tough, and short cuts, arm-twisting and top down dictates will ultimately not get the job done. What it does, instead, as we witness today, is to force the disintegration of the tenuous structure of the system.
The beauty of Diane's book is how she does it, disarmingly. Starting with the first chapter, she tells us how and why all this is "true" while she recognizes her earlier mistakes and assumptions and then, through careful analysis of her own and others' recent research, uncovers, chunk by chunk, what doesn't work, her opinions why, and the unfinished questions and answers that remain. What is particularly impressive for me is her inside look and take on periods in education history with which I am personally and professionally familiar. The chapters on the Standards Movement, the Transformation of District 2 in New York City, the Lessons from San Diego, all the way through to the brilliant Billionaire Boys' Club, shine a powerful searchlight on what's gone dead wrong with American education: Corporate America, in the name of reform and its addiction to power, money and international supremacy now drives fearful schools and the people in them preaching the worship of the new gods of data, metrics, literacy and easily adjustable test scores.
In my view, Diane has always been a staunch humanist, a rigorous historian and an arts as education advocate. As I watched her recently, gradually find her new way carefully through the last several years, I got more and more excited and nowadays, I am continually thrilled by her blunt and beautifully written thoughts that hit the page and the reader between the eyes. She has given those of us who believe public education is about creating individualized and informed citizens for a democracy a series of arguments for tossing out the hollow structural blueprints and returning our schools to a focus on rich and varied content and excellent teaching and learning.
Now, are there magic and final answers to the tremendous challenge of top-notch education in a democracy as young as ours? No, of course not. But the last chapter, Lessons Learned" offers a number of ideas, suggestions that could keep a seminar, let alone a national conversation, on this critical topic going for a long, long time.
Thank you, Diane.
Jane Remer, March 4, 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.
*****************************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************************************
Originally Created As a Blurb for Diane Ravitch's Website; With Diane's Permission
Jane Remer's Cliffnotes: Diane Ravitch and The Renewal of the Great American School System
It is not unusual for historians, political figures, Supreme Court justices, party faithfuls and true believers of all stripes to change their minds in the middle of their career. It is rare, however, that a public figure with the stature of Diane Ravitch demonstrates the courage and chronicles the gradual mind-changing (and game-changing) process so that it is visible, "out-loud" and accessible to those within earshot and who follow her Bridging Differences dialogue with Deborah Meier. The Death and Life of the Great American School System is her latest in a long line of distinguished books, and I think it is not only an amazing accomplishment but a very important book. It must be read, widely.
I have worked for close to half a century in and with public schools and districts across the country. I have been a friend and colleague of many others who are deeply concerned with the quality and direction of American public education, e.g., John Goodlad, Seymour Sarason, Robert Stake, Harold "Doc" Howe, Frank Keppel, Howard Gardner, and David Perkins. My first book, Changing Schools Through the Arts, chronicled in great detail the hope, promise and serious obstacles to school change in a network of six urban U.S. school districts. I am reminded on a daily basis as I work in the schools how difficult it is to initiate, implement and most of all sustain change whether in one school or a large number.
What Diane's book teaches us, or at least reminds us, is the current notion that non-school people such as mayors, generals and lawyers should not be given the power and responsibility to run school systems in a functioning democracy. The research and results are plentiful about the problems, even when (and usually) none of the researchers agree with each other about the causes and results. But schools are complex, old fashioned entities, essentially social communities, and no one district, school or classroom is like another. Schools tend to be latest-fad addicted, always hoping for the holy grail to solve whatever the latest problem may be, and in a bureaucracy like a school system that never has enough patience, resources or field-based and grass roots intelligence to figure out how to move forward, there is rarely enough time dedicated to gathering stakeholders and evidence for support. Even then, school change is really tough, and short cuts, arm-twisting and top down dictates will ultimately not get the job done. What it does, instead, as we witness today, is to force the disintegration of the tenuous structure of the system.
The beauty of Diane's book is how she does it, disarmingly. Starting with the first chapter, she tells us how and why all this is "true" while she recognizes her earlier mistakes and assumptions and then, through careful analysis of her own and others' recent research, uncovers, chunk by chunk, what doesn't work, her opinions why, and the unfinished questions and answers that remain. What is particularly impressive for me is her inside look and take on periods in education history with which I am personally and professionally familiar. The chapters on the Standards Movement, the Transformation of District 2 in New York City, the Lessons from San Diego, all the way through to the brilliant Billionaire Boys' Club, shine a powerful searchlight on what's gone dead wrong with American education: Corporate America, in the name of reform and its addiction to power, money and international supremacy now drives fearful schools and the people in them preaching the worship of the new gods of data, metrics, literacy and easily adjustable test scores.
In my view, Diane has always been a staunch humanist, a rigorous historian and an arts as education advocate. As I watched her recently, gradually find her new way carefully through the last several years, I got more and more excited and nowadays, I am continually thrilled by her blunt and beautifully written thoughts that hit the page and the reader between the eyes. She has given those of us who believe public education is about creating individualized and informed citizens for a democracy a series of arguments for tossing out the hollow structural blueprints and returning our schools to a focus on rich and varied content and excellent teaching and learning.
Now, are there magic and final answers to the tremendous challenge of top-notch education in a democracy as young as ours? No, of course not. But the last chapter, Lessons Learned" offers a number of ideas, suggestions that could keep a seminar, let alone a national conversation, on this critical topic going for a long, long time.
Thank you, Diane.
Jane Remer, March 4, 2010
Diane Ravitch from Education Week on Vimeo.
***********************************************************************************************************
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.*****************************************************************************************************
Well, apparently he's both in front of and behind the plan. In fact, Mayor Boris Johnson is clearly excited by this project.
Click here to listen to him speaking about music education and this new project.
Click here to view the plan.
This plan and the support behind it reminds me of this plan below, from 1996, which had the same top down and bottom up city-wide support that doesn't come along all that often:
Final NYC Plan
Click here to listen to him speaking about music education and this new project.
Click here to view the plan.
There are many local music services,orchestras, arts organisations, charities and schools which do excellent work. This strategy sets out how we will champion them, help them to grow and reach out to more Londoners.It is great to see such a plan put together, that clearly has the sort of real deal buy-in from the grass tops and the grass roots, led by the Mayor of London. The plan does fall short on financial commitment, by just about any measure of school funding. That being said, it has promise to jump-start something provided that this plan can be supported and is used a the platform for growth.
This plan and the support behind it reminds me of this plan below, from 1996, which had the same top down and bottom up city-wide support that doesn't come along all that often:
Final NYC Plan
Lots of news associated with the USDOE. This one is big.
Today the USODE sent letters to governors announcing the finalists for the first round of RttT.
Much was made about this. The local papers and other pundits had basically said that New York's application was DOA, due to the above issues. In the end, the USDOE moved forward its agenda by holding out a carrot without necessarily using the stick.
GovernorsRTT
Today the USODE sent letters to governors announcing the finalists for the first round of RttT.
The Department received 41 applications for the first phase of Race to the Top. Each application underwent a comprehensive and rigorous review by an expert panel of independent reviewers and we have selected the following finalists: Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee.It was as I had thought: things like caps on charter schools or prohibitions on using standardized test data to determine teacher tenure did not automatically disqualify applicants.
Much was made about this. The local papers and other pundits had basically said that New York's application was DOA, due to the above issues. In the end, the USDOE moved forward its agenda by holding out a carrot without necessarily using the stick.
GovernorsRTT
Okay, for those of you who have been following this, here's Part III.
At the bottom of this entry is the pertinent FY 2011 budget request from the Administration.
What this tells us is $137mm would be allocated for the grants portion of the third of three new categories of funding that includes arts education: Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education.
$137mm would be allocated to a total of 15-20 grants across seven disciplines including the arts, foreign language, history, civics and government, and economics.
Additionally, $111mm will be allocated to support antecedent programs, including $15mm for arts education.
So, here's what I haven't quite figured out yet: I have been informed that there are currently 54 active arts education grants including AEMDD and PDAE (Professional Development).
54 grants for arts education currently, which have been awarded across different years (it's true, I don't yet have all the details), need to be viewed in light of the proposal to award a total of 15-20 grants annually to five different areas, some portion of which will be for arts education. So, even if the grants are allocated evenly across the five disciplines, that constitutes between four and five arts education grants a year.
The last year AEMDD grants were awarded, there were 14 grants grants.
Finally, there has been no determination made as to how the performance of the program will be measured, although they have tipped their hand pretty strongly. (see last paragraph of request.)
So, you can see a few key questions emerging:
1. Is the USDOE committed to supporting arts education through its grant making on an annual basis?
2. Will the structure result in a diminution of the current program, through dollar amounts awarded, programmatic changes, or otherwise?
3. How does the USDOE envision the structure of the new program?
4. Are they committed to retaining arts education as a core academic subject?
5. Am I making any sense at all?!?
At the bottom of this entry is the pertinent FY 2011 budget request from the Administration.
What this tells us is $137mm would be allocated for the grants portion of the third of three new categories of funding that includes arts education: Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education.
$137mm would be allocated to a total of 15-20 grants across seven disciplines including the arts, foreign language, history, civics and government, and economics.
Additionally, $111mm will be allocated to support antecedent programs, including $15mm for arts education.
So, here's what I haven't quite figured out yet: I have been informed that there are currently 54 active arts education grants including AEMDD and PDAE (Professional Development).
54 grants for arts education currently, which have been awarded across different years (it's true, I don't yet have all the details), need to be viewed in light of the proposal to award a total of 15-20 grants annually to five different areas, some portion of which will be for arts education. So, even if the grants are allocated evenly across the five disciplines, that constitutes between four and five arts education grants a year.
The last year AEMDD grants were awarded, there were 14 grants grants.
Finally, there has been no determination made as to how the performance of the program will be measured, although they have tipped their hand pretty strongly. (see last paragraph of request.)
So, you can see a few key questions emerging:
1. Is the USDOE committed to supporting arts education through its grant making on an annual basis?
2. Will the structure result in a diminution of the current program, through dollar amounts awarded, programmatic changes, or otherwise?
3. How does the USDOE envision the structure of the new program?
4. Are they committed to retaining arts education as a core academic subject?
5. Am I making any sense at all?!?
FY 2011 BUDGET REQUEST
The Administration requests $265 million in 2011 for the proposed Effective Teaching and
Learning for a Well-Rounded Education program. The request would support the first year of the new program, which would replace several narrowly targeted programs that support the improvement of education in the arts, foreign language, history, civics and government, and economics.
The Administration believes that all students should receive high-quality instruction in the core academic subject areas. However, the existing range of Federal programs that focus on the teaching and learning of specific subjects, including the arts, foreign languages, civics and government, history, geography, and economics and financial literacy is too fragmented to provide State and district officials with the tools they need to strengthen instruction and increase student achievement in the comprehensive manner required. Nor are the current programs well-structured to enable educators and policymakers to identify the most effective practices to replicate. Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education would address these problems by consolidating the existing funding streams into a single comprehensive program that drives resources to where they are most needed and in a manner that will more effectively address local needs and generate information on what works.
The Department also would use funds allocated for Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well- Rounded Education to pay continuation costs under Arts in Education, Foreign Language Assistance, Teaching American History, Civic Education, and Excellence in Economic Education.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
Effective Teaching and Learning for a Complete Education
D-29
PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES ($000s)
2011
Amount for grants $137,591
Number of grants 15-20
Peer review of new award applications $200
National activities set-aside $15,310
Continuations for antecedent programs $111,899
Total, Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education $265,000
_______________
NOTE: Continuation costs of approximately $111,899 thousand would be provided to fund continuation awards for grants made under the following programs prior to enactment of the reauthorization: Arts in Education ($15,257), Foreign Language Assistance ($29,296), Teaching American History ($50,000), Civic Education ($3,346), and Excellence in Economic Education ($14,000).
National Activities
From the amount requested for the Effective Teaching and Learning for a Complete Education programs, the Administration would reserve $71.2 million in 2011 to support a range of national activities, including research, technical assistance, prize awards, dissemination, financial literacy, and other activities. The Department may also use funds to strengthen the use of technology in the core academic subjects, including through grants to help build States' capacity to implement technology-enabled curriculum, assessments, professional development, and supporting tools and resources. National Activities funds could also be used to provide assistance to public telecommunications agencies, such as the Public Broadcasting Service, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and other entities to create high-quality educational content or children.
PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
The Department has not yet developed performance measures for this proposed program, but will do so later in 2010. These measures would likely include the percentage of students who perform above proficiency in core academic subjects as measured against their States' K-12 standards.
The Gates Foundation teamed up with Scholastic Inc, and Harris Interactive to conduct a survey of 40,000 teachers nationwide.
Primary Sources: America's Teachers on America's Schools is the name of the survey.
I would have to say that I am not surprised by what I've read so far:
Just 22 percent said they thought evaluations by principals were a very accurate measure of their work.
Forty percent said students entered their classroom below grade level.
30 percent said monetary rewards for teachers had no impact on increasing students' academic achievement.
When asked about keeping good teachers, the leading choice was "supportive leadership" followed by higher salaries.
Under 50 percent said higher salaries are absolutely essential for keeping good teachers, and only 8 percent said they thought pay for performance is vital.
While 92 percent of teachers said tests given in class are essential or very important in measuring student achievement, just 27 percent said the same about state standardized tests.
If you want to download the slide presentation, click here.
If you want to view the full report without appendices, click here.
It's a big survey and I haven't yet had the time to digest it. I plan to report a bit more in detail over the next few days. In the meantime, here's the press release:
Teachers Call For Engaging Curriculum, Supportive
Leadership, Clear Standards Common Across States in Survey by
Scholastic Inc. and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Primary Sources: America's Teachers on America's Schools is the name of the survey.
I would have to say that I am not surprised by what I've read so far:
Just 22 percent said they thought evaluations by principals were a very accurate measure of their work.
Forty percent said students entered their classroom below grade level.
30 percent said monetary rewards for teachers had no impact on increasing students' academic achievement.
When asked about keeping good teachers, the leading choice was "supportive leadership" followed by higher salaries.
Under 50 percent said higher salaries are absolutely essential for keeping good teachers, and only 8 percent said they thought pay for performance is vital.
While 92 percent of teachers said tests given in class are essential or very important in measuring student achievement, just 27 percent said the same about state standardized tests.
If you want to download the slide presentation, click here.
If you want to view the full report without appendices, click here.
It's a big survey and I haven't yet had the time to digest it. I plan to report a bit more in detail over the next few days. In the meantime, here's the press release:
40,000 Teachers Give Their Views on Education Reform in "Primary Sources"
New York, March 3, 2010 -- Scholastic Inc. and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation today released Primary Sources: America's Teachers on America's Schools, a landmark report presenting the results of a national survey of more than 40,000 public school teachers in grades pre-K to 12. The survey reveals that, while teachers have high expectations for their students, they overwhelmingly agree that too many students are leaving unprepared for success beyond high school. Primary Sources reveals teachers' thoughtful, nuanced views on issues at the heart of education reform - from performance pay and standardized tests to academic standards and teacher evaluation. Teacher responses reveal five powerful solutions to raise student achievement.
"Teachers are a critical part of preparing our children for the future, and their voices are an essential addition to the national debate on education," said Margery Mayer, Executive Vice President and President, Scholastic Education. "At Scholastic, we work daily with teachers and we know that they have powerful ideas on how best to tackle the challenges facing our schools. Since teachers are the frontline of delivering education in the classroom, the reform movement will not succeed without their active support. Primary Sources is a step in ensuring that teachers' voices are a part of this important conversation."
Due to the size and scope of the study, Primary Sources, which was conducted by Harris Interactive, allows for analysis of teachers' views by grade taught, urbanicity, income-level, years of experience and more. The report also provides an in-depth look at state-by-state data, revealing significant differences in teacher views from one state to another.
"Primary Sources tells us that teachers see a need for stronger curriculum that relates to the real world, clear academic standards from grade to grade and reliable data on student learning," said Vicki L. Phillips, Director of Education, College Ready, at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. "The survey tells us that what's good for students and student achievement is good for teachers too--in fact, it's what they want."
The survey, which was conducted by phone and on the web from mid-March to mid-June 2009, identifies five solutions to address the challenges facing schools today and to help ensure that all students achieve at their highest levels:
- Establish Clear Standards, Common Across States
- Use Multiple Measures to Evaluate Student Performance
- Innovate to Reach Today's Students
- Accurately Measure Teacher Performance and Provide Non-Monetary Rewards
- Bridge School & Home to Raise Student Achievement
Within these solution areas, the survey findings debunk several commonly held myths about teachers' views. The survey found that:
- While higher salaries are important, teachers say they are less important than a supportive leader. Fewer than half of teachers (45%) say higher salaries are absolutely essential for retaining good teachers. More teachers say it is absolutely essential to have supportive leadership (68%), time to collaborate (54%), and quality curriculum (49%).
- Teachers aren't opposed to standardized tests as one way to measure student performance. More than 80 percent of teachers say district-required tests are at least a somewhat important measure of student performance (84%). Overall, teachers value multiple measures, including formative assessments, performance on class assignments and class participation along with standardized tests.
- Tenure doesn't make a good teacher. Only 10 percent of teachers say that tenure is a very accurate measure of teacher performance while 42 percent say it is not at all accurate. Student engagement and year over year progress of students are by far viewed as the most accurate indicators of teacher performance measures (60% and 55%, respectively, rate as very accurate) but are not frequently used to evaluate teachers.
- Textbooks aren't the answer. Only 12 percent of teachers say traditional textbooks help improve student academic achievement and a mere 6 percent say textbooks engage students in learning. Teachers overwhelmingly say (81%) that up-to-date information-based technology is very important or absolutely essential to improve student achievement.
- A teacher's job doesn't end at 3 p.m. Seven in ten teachers attend their students' after school and weekend events. More than half (51%) of elementary school teachers are willing to have parent teacher conferences at students' homes -- indicating their understanding of time-strapped parents and their belief in the importance of helping every child have a strong home-school connection.
The importance of bringing teacher voices to conversations around education reform was underscored in the most recent MetLife Survey of the American Teacher in which two-thirds of teachers said they felt teachers were not adequately heard in the debate on education.
Primary Sources: America's Teachers on America's Schools is the beginning of an ongoing dialogue with America's teachers. To download the full report and view a presentation of the findings, please visit www.scholastic.com/primarysources.
###
Methodology Primary Sources: America's Teachers on America's Schools was conducted by telephone and online methods within the United States between March 10 to June 18, 2009 among 40,490 preK-12 public school classroom teachers. Figures were weighted where necessary for gender, years of teaching experience, school level, region and urbanicity to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for any attitudinal/behavioral biases inherent in the sample of those who responded in each mode (telephone or online).
About Scholastic Scholastic Corporation (NASDAQ: SCHL) is the world's largest publisher and distributor of children's books and a leader in educational technology and children's media. Scholastic creates quality educational and entertaining materials and products for use in school and at home, including children's books, magazines, technology-based products, teacher materials, television programming, film, videos and toys. The Company distributes its products and services through a variety of channels, including proprietary school-based book clubs and school-based book fairs, retail stores, schools, libraries, television networks and the Company's Internet Site, www.scholastic.com.
About the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people's health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all people-:especially those with the fewest resources-have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Jeff Raikes and Co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the direction of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.
About Harris Interactive Harris Interactive is one of the world's leading custom market research firms, leveraging research, technology, and business acumen to transform relevant insight into actionable foresight. Known widely for the Harris Poll and for pioneering innovative research methodologies, Harris offers expertise in a wide range of industries and serves clients in over 215 countries and territories. For more information, please visit www.harrisinteractive.com.
Contact:
| Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Media Relations 1-206-709-3400 media@gatesfoundation.org |
Scholastic Sarah Trabucchi 1-212-343-6424 strabucchi@scholastic.com |
As part of the president's FY2011 budget request, the range of content and discipline-specific funding programs, including those for arts education, would be streamlined into three new categories: literacy, STEM, "what makes a well rounded education," where presumably arts education would be situated.
This is a follow-up to my entry from last week: A Rapidly Growing Concern About Arts Education at the USDOE.
So, essentially what would happen here is that many of the current discipline-specific programs, many of which receive line item funding approved by Congress, would disappear as line items and be subject to administrative decisions made by the USDOE.
It's possible that more money could go to arts education.
Conversely, it's possible that arts education could disappear all together.
All it would take would be one tin-eared (an tin-horned) USDOE and poof, you could kiss it goodbye. At least under the current way of doing things, Congress can step in to support arts education.
Here's the best quote, a smoking gun sort of quote that gives me great pause, as reported in Education Week:
The more I think about this, the more I think that this is a big issue that the national advocacy community needs to focus on.
Click here for Obama Wants to Consolidate Curriculum Programs, by Education Week.
If you're wondering what the heck that image below is exactly, it is a tin ear, or more precisely an antique German ear trumpet.
This is a follow-up to my entry from last week: A Rapidly Growing Concern About Arts Education at the USDOE.
So, essentially what would happen here is that many of the current discipline-specific programs, many of which receive line item funding approved by Congress, would disappear as line items and be subject to administrative decisions made by the USDOE.
It's possible that more money could go to arts education.
Conversely, it's possible that arts education could disappear all together.
All it would take would be one tin-eared (an tin-horned) USDOE and poof, you could kiss it goodbye. At least under the current way of doing things, Congress can step in to support arts education.
Here's the best quote, a smoking gun sort of quote that gives me great pause, as reported in Education Week:
Sandra Abrevaya, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education, defends the budget plans, noting that many of the activities financed through the programs targeted for consolidation may well receive funding.I don't know if the quote was meant to allay concerns, but if so, it certainly didn't do the trick. "May well receive funding," after the way Race to the Top was structured, should ring some alarm bells.
The more I think about this, the more I think that this is a big issue that the national advocacy community needs to focus on.
Click here for Obama Wants to Consolidate Curriculum Programs, by Education Week.
If you're wondering what the heck that image below is exactly, it is a tin ear, or more precisely an antique German ear trumpet.
I get asked about this document fairly often, so I thought I would re-post it. There is something about this Arts Education Bill of Rights that captures people's imagination.
We haven't done much with it yet, but are working on it, and see it as having great potential to frame the issues around arts education and equity.
The Center for Arts Education
ARTS EDUCATION BILL OF RIGHTS
We haven't done much with it yet, but are working on it, and see it as having great potential to frame the issues around arts education and equity.
The Center for Arts Education
ARTS EDUCATION BILL OF RIGHTS
Every child in every school has the right to a well-rounded education, of which the arts are an essential ingredient. Beyond
having great value in and of themselves, the arts promote the health
and well-being of children, including academic and personal growth,
critical thinking and analytical skills, and the motivation to stay in
school and excel. Quality arts education is central to a complete
education--and it is required by state law.
Experience with the arts gives children the
opportunity to achieve their full potential and become artists,
audiences, informed citizens, and professionals who are prepared for
success in the 21st century economy.
A quality arts education provides students with unique learning opportunities that:
- Open doors of opportunity through the development of conceptual, analytical, and problem-solving skills that are indispensable in the 21st century workforce
- Foster an understanding of personal identity, appreciation for culture, and connection with community
- Contribute to students' overall health and development as people and global citizens
- Help transform schools into places of inquiry and wonder where excitement, possibility, discovery, and imagination thrive
- Encourage expression, creativity, innovative thinking, and cooperative learning experiences
- Increase students' aptitude for learning and motivate them to stay in school and strive for greater success
- Engage multiple learning styles in ways not achievable through traditional instructional methods
Every school must have the resources, leadership, parental
involvement, and public commitment needed to ensure that every child is
able to realize the unique benefits of learning in and through the arts. Every child in every school has the right to the fundamental components of a quality arts education, including:
- Instruction by qualified teachers, enriched and strengthened by dedicated teaching artists and cultural institutions
- Facilities and classrooms that are adequately equipped for learning in and through the arts
- Access to appropriate materials, supplies, equipment, and instruments
- The requisite instructional time to deliver standards-based instruction in all art forms
- The minimum legal requirements for arts education as set forth in state education law
