Arts and The GAO Report: Does the Media Play the Telephone Game?

A few weeks ago I wrote about a new report from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) concerning the effects of NCLB on arts instruction (see narrowing of curriculum).

Not a great deal of attention has been paid to this study, beyond a piece in the Dallas Morning News and two recent blogs: Eduwonk, and Education Week. Additionally, Michael Sikes of the Arts Education Partnership published an analysis of the report.

I have intended to come back to the study, as all I really did in my blog was to announce it. The piece in the Dallas Morning News pressed the issue.

The more I looked at this study, the more uneasy I felt.

I had spent some time with the researchers and like them very much. It’s important to realize that even though they’re the Government Accounting Office, as impressive as that may sound, the title doesn’t necessarily give them access to information that districts, state departments of education, and USDOE do not want to share with them. In addition, the parameters they were allowed to research were extremely narrow.

So, the report took a look at two academic years of data, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007, and drew the conclusion that NCLB had caused little to no reduction in arts instruction for the roughly 93% of elementary school teachers surveyed nationwide. It found that seven percent of schools surveyed reduced instruction in the arts and that the most significant declines were in schools that were failing to meet AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) under NCLB measurement on standardized tests in reading and math, as well those with the highest percentages of minority students.

So, you might argue that it’s very good news for those who support NCLB, with some very bad news if you have an interest in equity (which is what NCLB is supposed to be about anyway).

Good and bad, it is big news, and disputes the widely discussed report by the Center for Education Policy on NCLB and the narrowing of the curriculum.

So, why am I uneasy?

Let’s start with the title: Access to Arts Education: Inclusion of Additional Questions in Education’s Planned Research Would Help Explain Why Instruction Time Has Decreased for Some Students. I mean, is this the worst title ever? (sorry friends at GAO). More to the point, however, is how the title is at odds with the central findings. If the study found that 93% of schools maintained arts instruction regardless of the testing requirements of NCLB, wouldn’t that be reflected in the title? Why would the authors downplay that finding? Perhaps there is some ambivalence there?

Here are a few questions/comments:

How could a study of two academic years made after NCLB was implemented and without an established baseline prior to NCLB’s implementation tell us very much?

The survey questions are never provided, which makes it difficult to understand the relationship between conclusions and questions posed to teachers, as well as surveys and interviews with district officials.

The study indicates that the arts are provided to elementary students at a rate of six percent of their instructional time on task. That’s way under New York State requirements, as a one point of reference, and you have to wonder whether or not the survey could ascertain reductions much below six percent of time. How accurate can they get with such survey. But again, they don’t provide the survey (or raw data).

The study gives the impression that it is surveying teachers, but at the same time getting some of this information from district officials, many of whom have little to no real data about instructional time at the elementary levels. On the whole, the best these officials can do is address what is offered, rather than actual instructional time on task.

The study fails to recognize that most people in education policy believe that the curriculum narrowed years before NCLB, as the focus on reading and math is nothing new–the whole education system is built around testing in reading and math and has been for years (see my blog, Educational Industrial Complex, in the archives). NCLB is viewed by many as a sort of topping up on the decades of curriculum narrowing that has already taken place.

What is more, and perhaps the kicker here, is that is that the GAO didn’t actually survey the teachers. They used two existing surveys conducted by the USDOE and worked from summaries, as the raw data was not made available.

Enough said.

So, if you’ve been kind enough to read the whole blog, you’re asking what this has to do with the telephone game. Well, along comes the Dallas Morning News with the headline: “GAO finds that School Arts Curriculum Not Hurt by Standardized Testing.” And here’s the opening paragraph:

“A government
report found that elementary school time devoted to art and music
curriculum hasn’t changed despite the ongoing pressures of standardized
testing in core subjects such as math and science.”

What the hell? See what I mean? NCLB has been great for the arts (or at least benign), let’s throw a party? The telephone game goes like this: GAO report; Dallas Morning News; hey friend, did you know that NCLB has had no effect on time spent studying non-tested subject areas; hey friend, let’s test even more; hey friend, the arts benefit from testing in other subjects.

Even if you take the report at complete face value, six percent of instructional time spent on the arts in elementary schools is hard to view in a positive light, and one could argue that the real story is the effect NCLB is having on schools failing to make AYP, and for schools with high percentages of minority students. Perhaps that’s the reason for the title chosen by GAO.

Exaggeration? What do you think?

It’s a scary world when the media just prints a press release or report without any questions/research. It happened with WMDs. And here it is on display with what many will see as a pro-NCLB piece.

So, what is there to do about it?

Well, I would hope that Jack Jennings at CEP will issue a statement, as the report took issue with CEP’s findings to the contrary regarding the 93% of schools and the narrowing of the curriculum. I would also hope that someone will do substantive study that surveys teachers directly on impact, looks at a more significant span of time for a comparison, attempts to establish baseline data through the use of retrospective research, and tells us much more about this issue that is so important to the arts and all other subjects besides ELA and math.