Arts Education: A Right and Necessity

I thought the Obama admin was going to re-write NCLB but it looks like they dropped the ball on that, too. All I'm seeing now with this latest move is just election year posturing to throw a bone to the NEA lobby, from whom he needs support.

Obama's NCLB waivers are quickly making AYP a non-issue since they excuse schools from meeting that impossible measure. So basing the legitimacy of the arts on that standard of measurement is, thankfully, soon to be a thing of the past.

Even though it's been part of public schools since the 1870s, it's sad that arts education has been forced to create rationales for its place in the curriculum--rationales that usually advanced the interests of everything else but the fine arts (e.g. "Art education has to become more contemporary and more technically oriented" as you put it). Theatre, dance, visual arts, and music education are vitally important subjects in their own right--Beverly Sills called them the "signatures of our civilizations"--and deserve to be treated as such. It's not the arts that need to change, but the minds of those who continue to discredit their legitimacy.

Thanks, but if you read another part of the legislation, schools are only mandated by their respective SEA and LEAs to standardized assess in language arts, math, and science to meet AYP and therefore, qualify for fed money if they do.

The SEA determines what standardized assessments and core standards are to be followed to meet AYP.

Assessments that count toward AYP are all that public schools are concerned with, due to the amount of $$$ involved.

I'm not against the arts at all, but I recognize the climate of education and the trends it follows. Art education has to become more contemporary and sad to say, more technically oriented... more digital music production, digital filmmaking and post-production, website building, communication design, etc.... get those Adobe Creative Suites and go nuts. Kids love that stuff. Schools also love to show off new computer labs at BTSN as well.

The following is from the report "No Subject Left Behind," developed by a partnership of national arts organizations:

"It’s the Law: The definition of core subjects in the new law is located in Title IX, Part A, Section 9101 (1)(D)(11), Definitions. Here is how the definition reads:
`(11) CORE ACADEMIC SUBJECTS- The term `core academic subjects' means English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography........It should be noted that the national standards for the arts include standards for dance, music, theater, and visual arts. Furthermore in 1997, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) arts assessment was developed with separate assessments in dance, music, theater, and visual arts."

Summary: The arts are a core subject, they have national standards, and are part of a national standardized test.

The language of Subpart 15 Section 5551 says nothing of the sort. The basic purpose of that section is to inform that supplemental federal funding is available to qualified private or public schools to support arts program partnerships that students could benefit from. If art was considered a true core subject like reading, math, or science, it would be measured by standardized testing and factored into a public K-12 school's AYP performance.

Are you perhaps referring to a another section of the law that states what you claim?

" I am bothered when people feel entitled to things that no one is obligated to supply for them. Art is important to many, but it's not a "right" in a legal sense"

Sorry M. A. Hauck, but the arts actually ARE a right in the legal sense. Read the NCLB law...the arts are considered a core subject that are required to be taught.

While your zeal in presenting your cause is admirable, especially since I consider myself a highly artistic person with an understanding of the artistic process, I am bothered when people feel entitled to things that no one is obligated to supply for them. Art is important to many, but it's not a "right" in a legal sense. We know full well why arts are cut in lesser public schools obsessed with standardized test achievement. Eventually, when that pursuit dies out--because the DOE with its minions in the NEA will decree it--the pendulum will swing back. However, art teachers have to do a better job selling their vision to budget slashing admins who aren't artists. That's one of the toughest jobs in the world. You can't sell the arts on the appeal to aesthetic needs. unless your target audience are affluent patrons who make private donations to non-profit entities. I was once able to sell a video production program on the premise that in return for a hardware/software investment, I would promise to have students also produce stuff for the school's PR wing and other like services. You have to make deals and compromises with the those who control the dollars. I personally would prefer not to, like Bartleby, but given the alternative, I'll do what I have to to get what the kids need, even if I have to make pacts with the (supply your own pejorative here).

Selling via the entitlement angle seems cheesy. It smacks of self-centeredness, in my opinion.

I think you are missing one of the key reasons why we need to teach art in schools: Art satisfies the soul. When we are young, we are all artists. As we get older, many of us lose that feeling, but not all.

Maybe not everyone is cut out to be an artist. That's okay. Not everyone is cut out to be an athlete either. Or a physicist. Or a business man. But that doesn't stop us from teaching gym, science, or marketing.

Yes, we are preparing students for jobs. But we're also preparing them for the world after school. And part of that world is art.