saving arts education

The summary:

To determine what happens inside arts classes, we spent an academic year studying five visual-arts classrooms in two local Boston-area schools, videotaping and photographing classes, analyzing what we saw, and interviewing teachers and their students.

What we found in our analysis should worry parents and teachers facing cutbacks in school arts programs. While students in art classes learn techniques specific to art, such as how to draw, how to mix paint, or how to center a pot, they're also taught a remarkable array of mental habits not emphasized elsewhere in school.

Such skills include visual-spatial abilities, reflection, self-criticism, and the willingness to experiment and learn from mistakes. All are important to numerous careers, but are widely ignored by today's standardized tests.

As a former band geek and debater, and as a current English teacher and debate coach, I don't need any more proof about the value of the arts. But sadly, more and more policymakers do.

Winner and Hetland argue that arts defenders, by selling the arts as worthwhile inasmuch as they boost learning elsewhere, are selling them short. Read the entire article--I come away thinking they're right.

Now, as long we don't start standardizing the arts...

what's right with Washington's math education

We can't get enough students to pass the WASL, but at least our ACT results are 3rd-highest in the nation. Of course, a disclaimer is required:

This fact is not incongruous with the failure of many Washington students to meet the standard in the math section of the statewide graduation test, because many students taking the ACT test are high achievers aiming toward college who probably also passed the Washington Assessment of Student Learning.

And yet...

In 2006, Washington public and private school students averaged a combined SAT score of 1059, an average score of 527 in reading and 532 in math. That put Washington at the top of a list of 23 states in which more than 50 percent of high school students take the SAT.

Even without a strict WASL math requirement, we're number one. But then there's overall "college readiness":

The percentage who met the benchmark for all four subjects — including reading and science — was 34 percent, compared to 32 percent last year. Only 23 percent met this benchmark nationally.

Bad as things might be, at least they're better in Washington.

streamlining Washington's math curriculum

Not enough students are passing the math WASL, but that doesn't mean our standards are too high, according to an outside consultant.

"The bottom line is that Washington's math standards need to be strengthened," wrote Linda Plattner of the Maryland-based educational research firm Strategic Teaching, which was hired by the state to assess its math expectations.

The article notes some of the proposed changes. And who benefits--besides students and teachers, of course?

After the new learning requirements are written by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, guided by this report, a Board of Education committee will recommend three to five commercial math programs that fit well with the state's standards.

This will be a change in approach for Washington state, where at least 100 different math programs are used around the state, said Corrine McGuigan, assistant superintendent for research and education development at the state Education Department and a member of the state Board of Education committee working on the math action plan.

"That doesn't mean that a district can't go off and do what it wants," she added.

One can only guess what those 3-5 privileged curricula will be, as the standardization of Washington's state education continues apace.

standardizing the curriculum in the Bellevue district

In Bellevue, teaching is becoming a committee affair.

Since he arrived in Bellevue 11 years ago, [Bellevue Superintendent Mike] Riley slowly has shifted control away from individual teachers to committees, mostly made up of teachers. Those committees determine what all eighth-grade English teachers or all high-school biology teachers will teach and why. Teachers then write lessons for all their colleagues to use, or they adapt them from district textbooks. Adjustments are made as problems arise.

Teachers can take detours of a day or two to re-teach if they need to, but not much more, without committee approval.

Riley calls Bellevue's efforts "coordinated" or "coherent" curriculum. Critics deride it as "scripted."

The article, in true journalistic fashion, outlines the pros and cons and gives voice to teachers who both hate and love the new curriculum. The core disagreement is how much flexibility the new process allows--critics say it makes robots out of teachers, while proponents praise the amount of guesswork it takes out of the system.

In a way, it reminds me of curricular change my colleagues and I enacted at Capital High School over the past year. Crucial differences, though, made our process not only acceptable to all the teachers involved, but invigorating.

First, although we standardized some elements of instruction, we also purposefully respected teacher autonomy. We set up a book list and outlined lesson plans for specific activities like literature circles, but left it up to individuals to implement the curriculum in the way that worked best for them. We met frequently to discuss what was working and what wasn't, but at no time did we all follow the same daily plan.

Second, not only did we respect teacher autonomy, but we respected student autonomy, too, including three sessions of literature circles where students, with input from parents and teachers, chose their own books and read them together with small groups.

Third, and most important, our impetus to change came from the bottom up. We saw that certain students weren't being reached by a one-book-fits-all structure, and so we worked for months to revamp our curriculum. No principal, superintendent, or government flack breathed down our necks. Instead, we worked as professionals, and the result was impressive: student engagement, teacher confidence, and even district recognition.

Standardization, to a degree, has its benefits. The trick is finding the right degree--and teachers have to lead the way.




(Oh, and to Mike Riley, who thinks this country needs a national curriculum: what, are you crazy?)