Get Schooled

By Jeff

September 10, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

What a pompous attitude with these people!!!! (The parents and teachers!)

Since when is it “THE” Arts??

Just because I can’t stand ballet (or really anything that passes for “Dance” on “So you THINK you can dance”) doesn’t mean I’m not a well-rounded person.

Just because I don’t go to a live theatre production doesn’t mean I don’t understand the intricacies of human emotion.

Just because I see a lump of clay for a lump of clay and not some abstract “culture” doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate a good design.

And just because I don’t listen to Mozart doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy music.

Kids will find a way to express and enjoy themselves without cramming “THE” arts down their throats in school.

School should be about the most basic fundamentals: the classic “reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmetic” - though in today’s technological society I would throw in basic computer classes as well.

Society was never built or destroyed on the backs of its “arts”. It HAS been built and destroyed on the backs of its people knowing (or not) science, technology, and history.

By jim d

September 10, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Ah but Jeff,

Since 1983, scientific research has continued to verify that for developing children, the arts are more than just a fun part of a school day. Evidence indicates that arts programming teaches skills, knowledge and behaviors that are essential to becoming a successful adult.

Basing their analysis on such findings and on what education, business and political leaders consider essential to succeeding in school and at work, the US based Association for the Advancement of Arts Education (AAAE) concluded that the arts are necessary at every grade level.

Kent Seidel (Ph.D. and author of the AAAE’s 1996 publication) explains. “Having students work with creative drama and theatre in these earlier grades gives them a great advantage in their capacity for developing language skills, reading, writing, and verbal, and interpersonal skills. And all of the arts help students develop emotionally and socially, so that they are more prepared to deal with school, life, and other people.” (Details of the studies can be found at www.aaae.org/research.html)

Champions of Change: The Impact of the Arts on Learning, was another extensive research project conducted throughout the United States. It too resulted in compelling evidence showing how arts programming can improve overall academic performance and transform learning environments. The conclusions were based on the analysis of numerous and varied studies: Students with high levels of arts participation outperform “arts-poor” students on virtually every measure. (President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, pcah@neh.gov.com)

Jeff, I’m won’t even insinuate these studies were unbiased—but go ahead and check them out.

By wwww

September 10, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

I don’t think anyone is advocating fine arts being pushed down the throats of students. What most object to is the lack of importance artistic expression receives from the state.
It’s a slippery slope - there is so, so much emphasis on skill based learning so it completely ignores the learning that can’t be measured on a standardized test. That learning, some would argue, is infinitely more valuable. Sometimes, that immesurable learning takes place in a fine arts classroom, sometimes not. But lets not get rid of the opportunity to let students decide where their learning “spark” may reside. That is really what education is all about - well, should be all about, anyway. ;)

By Jeff

September 10, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

jim:

But we already have required “arts” classes for ES level kids. It is one of the primary reasons they get to MS and can’t do CRAP. Too much time spent in “art”, “music”, “pe” and the such in ES rather than the hard-core drilling of basic facts that needs to be happening so that they can begin to think on more and more abstract levels as they get older.

So here is where I stand: Pick a direction and stay with it. If you want “arts” required in ES, they shouldn’t even be mentioned at the HS level - we’ve got too much to do to try to teach them the things that they SHOULD have learned in ES. (One of the questions on the math portion of GHSGT is LITERALLY “Name this shape” and gives a diagram of a three sided figure!!!) On the other hand, if you want them mentioned and/ or required at the HS end, get them out of the ES level where they are nothing more than time-wasters and the ES can focus on doing its job and drilling in basic facts.

By mmm

September 10, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Jeff, and it is partly the lack of creative outlets at the middle school level that leads to the kids creating their own outlets—to the displeasure of those tasked with their incarceration. Thereafter follows the high dropout rate as soon as the age minimum is reached.

By fanofthearts

September 10, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

It’s not that you HAVE to take an arts class, but rather that you can use an arts class to fill an elective category.

Each person is different. Think about how boring the morning would be without bird songs. Everybody needs to have an outlet of some kind.

By V for Vendetta

September 10, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

I’m leaning pro-arts on this as well. As jim said, there are numerous (although not entirely unbiased) studies that show developmental benefits to having a well-rounded education that includes the arts. Something that I strongly believe, is that learning for the simple sake of learning is dying in this country. It’s one of the more serious problems education in the twenty-first century faces.

I don’t think taking a little time out here and there for music, art, and drama is negatively impacting practical education. If anything, kids are more well-rounded for it. It’s an attitude that will stick with them forever. Those kids will tend to be more open-minded about new things, and will perhaps help to dispel the ethnocentric American stereotypes that run rampant around the world. Wouldn’t that be nice.

More arts, less standardized tests, and a LOT less NCLB. Recipe for the perfect system? Well, maybe. But I doubt we’ll ever get to find out.

By JustMe

September 10, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

In my day, “the arts” was not a requirement but could be taken as an elective. I see nothing wrong with that approach.

If a parent wants to enlighten their child to “the arts” beyond some elective in public school, let them pay for piano lessons or the like!

Besides, there is enough on the plates of schools to teach the basics - math, science, social studies, and English. And, on top of that, the State requires foreign langage (an elective when I was in school).

Bottom line - schools cannot do EVERYTHING. Parents must do SOMETHING.

By Old School

September 10, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

I’ve seen “the arts” keep many, many students in school. Here the band is family to many students. Theatre gives hyper kids an outlet and you’d be surprised how many learn to channel that energy and focus themselves. The positive effects that the arts can have on students can positively impact their performance in my classroom.

I’m for keeping and even expanding offerings in the fine and performing arts. We can give students the skills to enable them to make a living…the arts make it a life worth living.

By Jay

September 10, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

How are the arts any less important than geography or history or psychology? What are the tangible benefits of finding Cambodia on a map? Or regurgitating one person’s opinion of why the Civil War was fought? Or learning about Freud’s mostly untestable psychoanalysis? These are all pretty arbitrary pursuits.

By Jeff

September 10, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Old School:

I’ll admit that my days in band served to increase my level of discipline - but only because my HS band director was hard core “drum and bugle corps” style and I was determined to push myself harder than he could ever DREAM of pushing me.

In middle school band, there was ZERO significant advantage to not being in it. (Other than it kept me from having to take as much PE - one of the primary reasons I chose it in the first place!)

I still hold that emphasizing arts at ONE level is fine. I simply ask that you choose: ES - where there is disputed “advantage” and the “art” produced is likely to only be enjoyable to the students’ families and teachers, or HS: where there is less so-called “advantage” but the “art” produced is generally of a decent enough level to be enjoyed by the community at large.

By Jeff

September 10, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this

Jay:

If someone tells me “such and such is going on in Myanmar (Burma)”, through my knowledge of geography and history (even though it is lacking in both subjects on the area in question), I can tell you a decent number of facts about the country: Located in SE Asia north of Malaysia, west of Thailand, South of China, East of India, the disputed name comes from the fact that a dictatorial (and many claim extremely inhumane) regime claims one name while much of the UN recognizes another. Operations in both WWII and Vietnam saw SOME action there. Home of ancient temples and practices. Due to its proximity to much more well known (and travelled) locales, most in the US probably couldn’t tell you as much as I just have, and even I am a novice as far as information on this particular country goes.

HOWEVER, Burma (Myanmar) HAS been in some news reports I have seen recently (I think some elections are coming up that the UN is planning on closely monitoring), and the information I just presented, while sketchy, at least provides a context of knowledge when reading said reports.

By jim d

September 10, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

Scuze me Jeff,

but if the rats are taken out of the 4-5 years in elementary and a couple at the MS age, Where will these kids learn the skills you seem to think they have at the HS level? How enjoyable will that be to the community then?

By jim d

September 10, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

how funny was that tpyo?

“Arts” not rats!! LOL ;-)

By HS Teacher Too

September 10, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

I posted this earlier but lost my connection, so I will try again.

I agree that schools can not do everything. My concern, however, is that if we leave arts as an elective, for all practical purposes we still won’t be providing any background in the arts, as students will make their elective selections for things such as SAT prep, etc. While schools can not do everything, they do have an obligation to provide for a well-rounded education, and that includes at least a passing knowledge and awareness of arts and culture.

When I grew up, we routinely took field trips to museums and theatrical presentations to enrich and supplement our classroom educations. For example, in fourth grade we went to a historical village (similar to Williamsburg, VA) where characters were in costume. This supplemented and gave more meaning to our studies of the colonies. In first grade, we went to the Museum of Natural History (NYC) to see the dinosaurs in conjunction with our studies about dinosaurs. In high school we went to a french restaurant to experience french food in conjunction with our language studies; we went to arts museums to see transcendentalist paintings. My point is that these things enrich education and make it more complete. We might not expect our students to BE Picasso by taking an art class; but we would be remiss if they did not know who Picasso was, and when he painted. Likewise, we might not expect all our students to grow up to be mathematicians, but we still expect that a well-rounded education includes Algebra and Trigonometry, right?

So I reiterate: making arts purely elective will still serve to phase them out of schools (students won’t choose them, and budgets then can cut them), and it is our responsiblity to educate all sides of our students.

By Jeff

September 10, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

HST2:

As JustMe said: If parents want their kids to recieve an education in the arts, it is the PARENT’s job to do it.

By Jay

September 10, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

“The information I just presented, while sketchy, at least provides a context of knowledge when reading said reports.”

How is reading about a report on Myanmar any different from reading a report on Greek tragedies or Roman comedies? And the historical information you cited is subjective, varying from one source to another.

Think about the Iraq War: If you ask five people from different backgrounds why we’re fighting, you’ll likely get five different answers. And we invaded Iraq just four years ago! That being said, imagine how many variations of history surround events that occurred many more years ago. To hold one account (or even a few) as true and teach it in school serves no more of a purpose than staging a play or art exhibit.

By Jeff

September 10, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

FYI, because I’m bored and find it somewhat amusing:

I have finally created a program for work which allows me roughly 5 min of post time every time I run it - and it is a program that I will likely be running at least once a day for the forseeable future… :(

By Jeff

September 10, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

Jay:

I’m gonna call you out using your example of the Iraq War (the second one, but it applies equally to the first):

Name why we went to war in the American Revolution.

Name why we went to war in The War of 1812.

Name why we went to war in the Civil War.

Name why we went to war in WWI.

Name why we went to war in WWII.

Name why we went to war in Korea.

Name why we went to war in Vietnam.

You see, what you said about Iraq II can be equally applied to each of those wars. And yet each of them, in their own way, were pivotal points in American History. Keyword there being AMERICAN. Our schools should NOT concern themselves with ANY version of the story other than the AMERICAN one. (Nor should our courts look to any country’s laws other than those of the United States of America, but that is a different rant.)

Schools are so concerned over “the arts” and pluralistic society that soon there won’t BE a “United” States of America.

And we will have ourselves to blame for it.

By Jay

September 10, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

“Our schools should NOT concern themselves with ANY version of the story other than the AMERICAN one.”

What is the American one? I’ll bet Newt Gingrich (an American) would answer your questions much differently than Noam Chomsky (also an American). History is just poorly written literature.

By Jeff

September 10, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

Jay, I re-emphasize, in case you missed it:

“Schools are so concerned over “the arts” and pluralistic society that soon there won’t BE a “United” States of America.”

By HB

September 10, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

It’s simple to me — an education that does not include fine arts is not a good well-rounded education. Why should this be left up to the parents alone to provide but not math or science?

“There is enough on the plates of schools to teach the basics - math, science, social studies, and English. And, on top of that, the State requires foreign langage.”

I attended high school in South GA 12 years ago on a 6-period day. I had 4 years of math, 4 science, 4 social studies, 4 English, 4 French, health, P.E. and still had room in my schedule for 7 other one-semester elective courses. Most students took less social studies and foreign language and had even more electives available. Why shouldn’t one or two of those semester electives become core requirements in the arts? Why is that too much to put on a school’s plate?

By Jeff

September 10, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

BTW:

Just to throw this out:

Iraq has a pluralistic society.

Switzerland doesn’t.

By Lisa B.

September 10, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this

Sometimes music, art or PE may be the only things a child enjoys all day. Some children aren’t so great academically, but talented in other areas. I’ve also read quite a bit of research over the years that show music and/or art education enhance academic ability, especially in math. Math score, by the way, are lagging horribly in Georgia, so we need all the help we can get in that area.

By DB

September 10, 2007 7:06 PM | Link to this

Ah, Jeff, you ol’ left-brain thinker, you! ;-)

The left side of the brain is the logical, sequential, rational, analytical and objective side that is good at looking at discrete parts of a problem. I think it’s fair to say you’ve got that one down pat!

The right brain, however — that’s the side that embraces randomness and intuition, the part of the brain that synthesizes information in creative ways, and tends to look at a problem from a wholistic point of view — in other words, the “artistic” side.

Your greatest achievements come from those who use intution and creativity and apply it to knowledge and logic. If children do not have an outlet and opportunity for developing that creativity in the arts, then I believe they are missing half of their educational experience. Any machine can recite facts.

Schools are expected to feed, instruct and care for our children (how many kids eat breakfast AND lunch at school? How many stay in the after-school daycare?) and more and more, it seems we expect them to socialize our children and teach them manners, a sense of responsibility, discipline, etc., etc. Why draw the line at the arts?

We’ll talk about the concept of multiple intelligences at another time. You obviously value the concrete, logical expression of facts. But life is not always logical, and is seldom concrete. You’ll create a nation of drones if all you feed them is facts. Oh, wait …

By Jeff

September 11, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

DB:

As a programmer, all I do day in and day out is create art. While there is a science attached to it, any pro-level programmer can tell you that creating a well-written and efficient program has FAR more to do with the art of the effort than the science (though knowledge of the science is essential).

Personally, I favor the none-in-ES-emphasize-in-HS approach to arts. Once a student has a firm foundation in the maths and sciences to know the scientific foundation of the art, and in the cultural aspects learned in Language Arts and Social Studies classes, rapid learning of the arts is possible - and likely.

For example, as you know, I spent 5 years tutoring programming. Did you know that it was RARE in that time that I encountered someone with a firm foundation in math coming to me for assistance with Programming Principles? They didn’t need to. Because of their foundation in the SCIENCE behind Computer Science, the ART of programming was simple.

It was the same case with me. With my firm foundation in logical expression, the ART of programming came seemingly natural to me. Indeed, I breezed through the Principles classes with barely less than a 95 - on ANYTHING.

Give me a scientist, and I can show you an artist.

The same cannot be said in reverse.

When ES-level schools produce scientists, HS level schools can produce artists.

As long as ES level schools are focusing on producing artists, HS level schools don’t stand a CHANCE at producing scientists.

By jim d

September 11, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

My my Jeff,

In art we must consider the artist’s reactions to things, his mood or emotion in their presence. They are expressions of total, concrete experiences, which include the self of the observer as well as the things he observes.

Scientific descriptions, on the other hand, render objects only; the feelings of the observer toward them are carefully excluded. Science is intentionally objective,–from the point of view of the artistic temperament, dry and cold. Even the realistic novel and play, while seeking to present a faithful picture of human life and to eliminate all private comment and emotion, cannot dispense with the elementary dramatic feelings of sympathy, suspense, and wonder.

Aesthetic expression is always integral, embodying a total state of mind, the core of which is some feeling; scientific expression is fragmentary or abstract, limiting itself to thought. Art, no less than science, may contain truthful images of things and abstract ideas, but never these alone; it always includes their life, their feeling tones, or values.

By DB

September 11, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

Bridgett: In response to your update, With tougher standards, they said, more students would need more tutoring, remedial classes other catch-up programs, which, of course, would cost more money.

Oh, PUH-LEEZE! Why not teach it right the first time?!? If they don’t pay attention and get it the first time through, then they OUGHT to have to pay extra for tutoring.

By jim d

September 12, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

Took me awhile to find this one in my archives, but really wanted to share it with y’all.

This famous quote comes from John Adams, who in 1780 informed his wife that ”I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture … .”