AJC.com > Blogs > Get Schooled > Archives > 2007 > June > 20 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USArts For All Or Some?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
I spent my morning yesterday at the State Department of Education, reading through nearly 250 comments submitted on the recently proposed high school graduation rule.
Most of the comments were critical of the new requirements, which would do away with current rules that allow students to choose from a college prep, career prep or dual college-career program.
What struck me was the number of complaints about the deletion of fine arts as a specified option for a graduation credit. (Computer technology suffered the same fate.)
Granted, most of those concerns seemed to come from one local school system where art teachers must have been mobilized to respond on the issue. But there were also noteworthy comments from art professors at the University of Georgia and from the sculptor of the state’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial (which, coincidentally, is located just outside the education department’s building).
Students still would be able to take classes such as chorus, dance and drama, which could count toward credit requirements. But teachers worry that — if fine arts isn’t spelled out as an acceptable credit option — the number of enrollees would drop severely, and, consequently, their departments would suffer.
I think the question essentially comes down to this: Are some electives more important than others — and therefore, should be required courses — or not?
Comments
By Jeff
June 20, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this
In today’s computing age, I would argue that a class similar to a CS Dept’s (Univ level) CS 101 should be required of ALL students. Regardless of what you will do in life, in today’s age you WILL come across a computer, probably FAR more than you realize, and a basic understanding of them is ESSENTIAL. Note that I’m not talking that you have to know how to build a network or a program, just the ESSENTIALS: knowing the basics of how the Internet works, e-commerce, publishing suites (MS Office/ Open Office type programs), maybe a cursory intro to Web Design and Programming - just enough so that you understand exactly what a computer is capable of - and NOT capable of. (The Wed Design component in KSU’s CSIS 2301 - their version of CS 101 - has you build a simple webpage with a picture, 3 links, and a link to your resume in Word format. The prorgamming component you only get a basic logical introduction, with ABSOLUTELY NO actual programming - though one professor (that I once worked on this project with) is working to make a Logical Language (pseudocode, for my fellow computer geeks) that would actually turn into a working program.)
A basic Art Appreciation class is HS couldn’t hurt, but again, I’d style it similar to the Collegiate approach. At KSU, you chose between Music, Art, or Theatre, and no matter which you chose you had to go to at least one event in each of the other two and do a brief report about it. (For example, since I chose Theatre I had to go to 2 plays - in addition to the things we did in class -, 1 musical performance, and 1 art gallery.) I also took some Theatre in HS, and overall I enjoy the fact that both gave me a bit of knowledge about theatre and everything it entails, I can honestly say that unless you actually go to plays as an adult, it is one of those classes that you TRULY never use again.
All this said, if forced to choose between CS, art, and a renewed emphasis on Social Studies… I choose Social Studies. (Modeled after the famous line from Mr. Holland’s Opus: I care about these kids just as much as you do. And if I’m forced to choose between Mozart and reading and writing and long division, I choose long division.
By kf
June 20, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this
ART ART ART ART ART ART ART
By ADT
June 20, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this
I think there should be more options to let students choose what type of education they receive. There should be less “required” courses and more electives. The economy rewards people who have diverse, specialized skills. If kids are taught the same exact subjects in school, then when the kids graduate, the workplace becomes over-saturated with workers with these same same skills, and the wages for these skills drop. I’m strongly considering home-schooling my kids just for a couple of years to let them learn diverse skills and the art of self-education so they can be in demand when they graduate. What concerns me is that all kids are now in college prep, and the government is encouraging everyone to go to college and then graduate school. Kids will graduate with loads of student loan debt when they’re older and have a lower likelihood of paying off the debt. Again, if everyone graduates with a graduate degree, then the wages for graduates drop. Why are low wages with lots of debt a good idea? I personally learned a lot more after graduating. Being well-schooled in America’s debt society may not be such a great concept.
By decaturparent
June 20, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this
Ugh….
I hate Georgia.
By SET
June 20, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this
And what’s the problem with sending the decision making authority downward? There is no reason (or constitutional authority) to have Federal Authority setting standards for local schools, and for that matter the states can afford to give more decision making to the elected school boards.
If a city school system wants to have a performing arts high school program, a culinary program or for that matter a hotel administration program - that’s is between them and their constituents.
The more choice the better.
By Peachy
June 20, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
Jeff, I love that you used the quote from Mr. Holland’s Opus about long division. I do think we need to really focus our kids on math, reading, science, and history. The scores speak for themselves.
But I must assert that there is a place for chorus, drama, art, and band in our schools. I must insist that my child be able to take these courses without having to worry about getting all her other “required” classes in. As Mr Holland said, if we take away the arts, “they’ll have nothing to read or write about.”
By pro writer
June 20, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
I write software and hardware manuals and training materials for a living. I did not study art in high school because I was too focused on studying the “right” courses to get into the “right” college. I did get into the “right” college. Once there, I minored in studio art. Art history teaches world history in a more visual way than a textbook Western Civ class, and for a visual person, this makes history more meaningful and memorable. Modern art tends to require explanation and analysis, two other valuable skills. Most importantly, studio arts teach you to see the world in a completely different way: an artist notices details, colors, and forms that make up the Big Picture- and you must see the Big Picture before you can draw the Big Picture. What could be more valuable than understanding the components of relationships? To me, that is what art is all about, and I would love to see some sort of required art class (history or studio) in high school. I still paint, not every day, but certainly every week. In addition to the lessons art teaches about seeing, it is also a valuable creative and constructive release from the sometimes difficult demands of a very structured adult work life.
By Peachy
June 20, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
THANK YOU!! to Ken Williams and Ira “Papa P” Pittman, who made my middle and high school days a little more bearable and my life a whole lot richer.
By Peachy
June 20, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this
THANK YOU!! to Ken Williams and Ira “Papa P” Pittman, who made my middle and high school days a little more bearable and my life a whole lot richer through song.
By Jeff
June 20, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
Peachy:
Ah, but I read and write about things ALL THE TIME without EVER using the “arts”. In fact, right now the only “arts” I read about are the arts of war (I’m reading One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer on my lunch breaks.) and the only ones I write about are the programmatic arts. (You should see some of the stuff I’m working with!)
The “arts” do NOT have a monopoly on human emotion. In fact, the variety of expression of human emotion is so vast that the “arts” are increasingly irrelevant.
By MBW
June 20, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this
Jeff:
What a silly comment. We don’t put arts in schools for the simple purpose training them to be professional artists, musicians or performers…nor is the implication that the only way to express emotion is through art.
Arts classes expand creative thinking, develop leadership skills, provide an emotional outlet, build school community/morale and increase students’ abilities to work with abstract concepts.
How people ultimately choose to express themselves is up to each individual…..but the SKILLS that the arts teach are invaluable, and can bring them to people who might not ordinarily be reached through the core subjects. Even still, however, the arts can be an effective teaching tool in a variety of subject areas.
I know this from my personal experience as a drama teacher.
Our students are humans…not machines.
More arts in the classroom!
By Jeff
June 20, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
MBW:
Drama has never once expanded my creative thinking, though I will allow that music has, on occassion. Paintings and other visual arts only serve the useful function of giving landfill operators more work.
You don’t develop leadership skills in the studio. You develop them in the trenches. The only reason drama improves school morale is when all students are required to go to the play during school hours - and then it is NOT because they are interested in the play. I haven’t seen a student YET able to work in abstract concepts because he was in a drama or arts class - but I have seen them able to deal with abstract concepts because of exposure to literature, mathematics, and physics.
I know this from my personal experience as a math teacher, programmer, AND former drama/ band student.
The one thing I will give music: in a drum and bugle corps style marching band, a person learns how to follow orders almost as well as had that person been in the Marines.
By Janine
June 20, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this
ADT @10:30 and SET @ 10:34… IMO, both speak words of wisdom . I would only add to ADT’s comments :APPRENTICESHIPS.
By Janine
June 20, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
A friend’s son just couldn’t seem to get it together in high school…all kinds of tragedies and problems. He dropped out and began to work as a mechanic’s helper [I prefer “apprentice”]. He learned truly “hands on” and now owns his own shop and has a great business with many loyal customers. He even learned the financial/keeping the books part from his mentor. I can’t help but think that this is an untapped area of education that could easily be included in our system. Who knows, then maybe all of SET’s left side of the Bell Curve” students could find a successful career and make contributions to our society. Then perhaps only those who are really not only interested, but capable of performing in college, would take the SAT .
By Jo
June 20, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this
Name me one society that has flourished without a strong arts and cultural community? Everyone will not become engineers or athletes. We must not overlook the students that are somewhere between the math students and the jocks and funrnish them with an interest as well. Are they to be considered any less important?
By just a teacher
June 20, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this
As a “core subject” teacher, I would like to point out that there are plenty of students who need the opportunity for creative expression or physical release during the day. Without classes like art, acting, or PE, they would be unmanageable in their other classes. I’ve sat in on many parent-teacher conferences or special education meetings in which it is clear that the only bright spot of a student’s day is an elective class. These classes are actually keeping some students in school. We should be expanding options, not foreclosing them.
By Nono
June 20, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this
I wholly agree, Jo. Every child has a gift, whether it’s being the star in the school play, starting their own garage band, being quarterback of the football team, fixing cars with their buddies on the weekend. What’s discouraging to me is that the outlets for artistic CREATIVITY that were available to my generation in school—elementary music and art programs in public schools, and let’s not forget RECESS—are all but gone in school today until students get to Junior High or High School. Art and music aren’t necessarily all about knowing who Picasso or Mozart were—they’re an opportunity for kids to be creative and expressive in ways they may not be otherwise. I was bored to tears in Math class, but had friends whose creativity for solving complex algebra equations and deciphering the mysteries of calculus was nurtured in it because they had a natural gift for numbers. I was a top-ranked vocalist in my state choral competitions, but my math-whiz friends couldn’t carry a tune. Creativity isn’t limited to art and music and drama, but if one of those is a child’s gift but they aren’t exposed to it, they can’t develop their full potential. As taxpayers we owe it to all our kids to give them the chance to realize their gifts and recognize that they are valued in society, even if they’ll only ever be a “starving artist” who has a boring day job just to pay the bills so they can continue the work that is their true passion.
By mmm
June 20, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this
elementary music, art and recess ARE all but gone in today’s public schools, that is much of why anyone with the means who cares for their children will either have to run the children around town to private expierences or put them in private schools, which still must satisfy the common sense demands that they make children and their parents happy and ready for higher education.
This trend lends weight to SET’s assertion that government schools really aren’t about producing a learned, thoughtful democracy—-they are about feeding and maintaining and containing the underclass.
So sad.
By Dee
June 20, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this
My high school art teacher left an indelible mark on me. He is the reason I pursued it as a career. After 20 years, we still keep in touch. Now I work with individuals suffering from Alzheimer’s and other dementia. Who says art is not useful, or not necessary? The “artists” I work with often have no other form of communication - art is it. It is what makes imagination rich and what makes invention (yes, even technology) possible. “Let thou goest and maketh art!”
By SET
June 20, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this
Jeff has a point - My position is somewhat in the middle. I would want my family members to go through a challenging and competitive primary and secondary school career even if they wanted to become a professional dancer. You never know when a little Chemistry might be needed. And I don’t care a bit what my student “wants”. My parents picked my classes through HS Graduation regardless of what I wanted. They worked off the Univ of CA entrance requirements. With summer school every year, I had the UC requirements done by the middle of 12th grade.
My Parent’s attitude was that I can do what I want when I don’t live with them and drive their cars. I can really respect that now. The idea was to increase my reach as well as to make sure me and all of my siblings were eligible to reach the academic level of my parents and a grandparent - a doctorate. So I took Chem, Physics and Biology and the foreign language and everything else on the list and learned to like it.
But I do believe the schools and the families should both have choices including the choice not to put a particular kid in an academic program. I believe the school should be able to exclude a student who doesn’t measure up to standards and the parents should also be able to enroll the kid in non-academic programs. Maybe at some point the kid should be able to upgrade against the parents wishes with the school’s concurrence.. But choice is generally good and national standards are normally terrible as applied.
Most of the people in legal distress I deal with day in and day out (All Public School types) have been able to do what they wanted all their lives. They are still trying to do whatever they want which is why they are in jail, being cleaned out by divorce & child support, in prison, in locked mental hospitals, having their wages attached, living in homeless shelters, etc. They are singing that Frank Sinatra song about “My Way” every waking hour. Some of them are 55 years old and they still use “I want” in ever paragraph of speech. I call them on it - the courthouse isn’t St Vincent DePaul’s Society.
The sad part is that many of these goofy people once owned homes and had jobs and families. During the good times they were able to get away with their self centeredness. Once the times turn tough or they get a little older or a little more addicted or whatever - they wind up in the gutter.
I don’t think the government should try to impose one program on all the families in the public schools. One size doesn’t fit all. Jeff is right - for his family. My parents were too. Others must be allowed to sink or swim on their own. When you do, everybody swims one way or another and you don’t have to fight with them.
By HS Teacher Too
June 20, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this
Joining late today, and so forgive me if this has already been said. Whatever happened to valuing, as a society, well-rounded citizens with some sense of cultural awareness? It’s similar to what I used to tell my math students — no, you may never use the quadratic formula walking down the aisle of Publix, but if someone were to ask you about the quadratic formula one day and you said “What’s that?” they would think you were an idiot.
Back about 10 years ago there was a billboard for the Atlanta Braves. I beleive it read, “Monet, Matisse, Maddux” and had a picture of Greg Maddux. A friend of mine, driving by, asked “Who’s monnit?”
Seriously.
THAT is why arts are important, folks — well-rounded adults with at least a little awareness of the history and world around them!
By Melinda
June 20, 2007 5:57 PM | Link to this
I just have to say that I think it’s terribly sad, and indicative of the shallowness of our society, that a subject as important as this one (shaping the creative potential of future generations) can solicit only 21 comments, and yet, “The Quest for the Perfect Pair of Jeans” is almost as hot a blog topic at 16 comments. Maybe if we all worried a little less about what our butts looked like in a pair of pants and opened up a book once in a while, we wouldn’t even HAVE to discuss the future of arts education!
By zeke
June 21, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this
Requiring so called “arts” classes to graduate is almost as stupid as requiring a foreign language for 3 or 4 semesters to graduate! How stupid! And requiring college students in engineering to have credits in literature, history, 4 semesters of a foreign language or such is about as relevent as Michael Moore! NADA!
By SET
June 21, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this
Zeke: I was a bnusiness major in college and my art requirement was satisfied by a photography class.
What you are complaining about is why you need the exercise of being forced to take classes outside your own major. People are not allowed to have a university degree - or for that matter a HS diploma - without having a certain breath of education. The concept is over a century old in this country. I agree with it and so does every other educated person I’ve met.
Education isn’t Burger King. Deal with it.
By Deborah
June 21, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this
Zeke - I can sum you up in two words - ‘How Stupid’.
In today’s global economy, a little knowledge of art, literature, history and foreign language will help an engineer have a better career, perhaps working in another country. I don’t know if you are an engineering student or not, but if you are, you’ll probably end of working for the GDOT creating poorly designed traffic control systems, like already exist in GA.
By Fulton County Mom
June 21, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this
TBS played “Mr. Holland’s Opus” this past weekend. I think educators would be wise to rewatch this film. When (Dryfus)says “You go ahead and teach these kids Gene…, and pretty soon they will have nothing to read and write about!” at his firing is particularly meaningful here.
Art, Drama and Music keep getting cut! Why? Those create a well balanced life. Additionally some people make a good living in these fields.
Again to quote the fictional Holland “The day they cut sports…now that will be a national tragedy.” While I do not support killing a sports program I would say (especially here) they are too BIG. I do grant that a number of people do make a good living in this field as well.
Balance of arts, sciences, humantities, and sports should be a goal of schools.
By Spalding High Mom
June 21, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this
I really sympathize with those who want to see more arts in the schools. I majored in a performing arts discipline, and find that it has enriched my life in numerous ways. A basic knowledge of literature and philosophy are key to any well-rounded education. I do think, however that the main focus of high schools should be to teach students how to conduct themselves as adults in society once the get out into the real world. To that end, I strongly advocate the inclusion of personal finance and driver’s ed in the mandatory core curriculum.
By Jeff
June 21, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this
FCM:
I personally know FAR more kids who have stayed in school due to their ties to the athletic program than any other tie in the building - particularly arts.
A kid can paint at home alone in his bedroom. He can’t play football at home alone in his bedroom, unless you’re talking the video game variety.
By FCM
June 21, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this
Jeff, I agree that sports due to there ‘team’ nature help you learn skills that are useful in the world and in some cases keep a kid in school. (Unless it is golf or tennis or some other ‘idividualized’ sport).
However, spending less on athletics to allow the non-sporty but creative people an avenue is a wise choice.
Maybe I should be quoting Darvis or Troy from High School Musical?
By holdingAJCaccountable
June 21, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this
Who the h-ll needs art? What, you want to develop critical thinkers or something? The only “art” we need to teach is the ability to recognize the cheeesburger symbol on the cash register.
Anything deeper would be so completely subversive to the status quo, that they may actually start to question the legitimacy of our Creation Myth, and the legitimacy of school officials who want to push in into the curriculum.
Art? H-ll no! Next thing you know, those radical liberals will want to start teaching evolution (as, get this, Science)
By Truth Filter
June 21, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this
Bridget, a question: Can’t a school system still require art if they want? Does is HAVE to be a state mandate?
By Bridget Gutierrez
June 21, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this
TF: Yes, school systems can go above and beyond the state requirements, and many may choose to do so.
This is an issue now because art teachers are in an uproar about the proposed change.
If they fail to make their case at the state level, I suspect they may lobby their own local boards of education to keep the elective standards the way they are.
By HB
June 21, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this
SET wrote: “Education isn’t Burger King. Deal with it.”
Wow. This may be greatest line ever written on this blog. Thanks, SET.
By high school teacher
June 21, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this
Paintings and other visual arts only serve the useful function of giving landfill operators more work.
Jeff, you make me sad. How un-colorful your life must be.
By the way, I was involved in drama, and I do think that it helped with my critical thinking skills. Developing the character that one is playing requires quite a bit of critical thinking. It requires an in-depth look at each character in a play, regarding motives, relationships to other characters, etc.
I daresay Shakespeare was a critical thinker.
By Jeff
June 21, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this
HST:
Instead of trying to “create” a fictional character, why not “develop” Hitler’s mind from 1918 - 1933, FDR’s mind in 1932, or even Benedict Arnold’s mind just prior to turning traitor?
No need to do that stuff in a class that serves no useful purpose. Instead, do it in social studies where you can gain a better understanding of the realities lived in of differing people from differing times/ locales. FAR better use of your time and creativity…
By high school teacher
June 21, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this
Just because a class served no useful purpose for you doesn’t mean that it served no useful purpose for everyone else. And I would much rather study fictional characters than Hitler. But that’s just me. And why is it FAR better use of my time to “develop” the mind of someone who is dead? It’s no different than creating a fictional character.
By Truth Filter
June 21, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this
Bridget,
Thanks for the answer. I wonder if it’s the state’s role to require arts or foreign language or anything else above and beyond the central academic subjects like math and reading.
Don’t get me wrong. Arts are very important. My best memories of High School were in music classes and drama.
Just wondering if that’s the state’s role
TF
By Fulton County Mom
June 21, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this
Are they cutting JROTC too?
I know when I was in HS they tried to do that. We lobbied to keep it.
My question (if they are looking to cut it) is when did the US Armed Services stop being a career option (and do not give me lip service about the war…we currently have family in service).