User:Racetothetop

Why the U.S. educational reform policies marginalized arts education?
There is a belief that Arts in education in the US has been neglected over the past decades compared to mainstream courses such as science, mathematics and business. In this article we discuss some of the notions and ideas from various quarters and individuals whom we have interviewed and solicited information supporting the aforementioned view.

We believe that many in society benefit from the arts but they are not investing in and developing artists from the ground up K-12. Attitudes of policy makers, school administrators, teachers, parents and students concerning the arts have not been very encouraging to promote arts education in America. One may at times come across proponents of arts education, but often they fail in advocating for the promotion of arts in education. This is true in the business world as well; which benefits tremendously yet barely offers appropriate credit or recognize the value of arts.

When we approached few of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Graduate School of Education students to ask about this topic; many were of the view that globalization and current market specific needs seem to be taking over education curricula in some aspects. Education policies and design of school courses give particular emphasis to mathematics and sciences whilst giving less relevance to arts. The question is to what extent Arts can be considered less relevant than other courses. Architectural companies, for example need good designers to conceive visually appealing products. Furthermore, Arts are not only useful for private companies, but also for the health sector. For instance, surgeons need to have very skillful use of their hands, and sculpture could translate into a very useful way of training kids to foster their abilities with their hands since early on in their lives, a Harvard Kennedy School student reveals.

These interviewees consider that the role of education is not only to train students for the market place but, mainly, educate them as human beings whilst preparing them for the professional world. They believe the Arts are as essential as mathematics and sciences because through arts kids learn how to express their humanity.

In this sense, former Congressman Jim Leach he stated that “There has been an historical tension between the “3 R’s” and the creative disciplines. This tension has become exacerbated with relatively poor testing results that have emerged in recent years. On the other hand, arts help ennoble life and provide the best training there is for expanding the imagination…Students need the order found in precise disciplines and the disorder of the creative arts if they are going to cope with a world hallmarked by change and its acceleration. Arts too easily get lost in the hurly-burly of politics and the pressures of testing in academic institutions” during an interview by Graduate School of education Briget Ganske.

Furthermore, his perceptions about funding for the arts as chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities were that “… The NEA and the NEH have budgets that in adjusted dollar terms are barely a third of what they were in 1979. The challenge is to educate the public on the essential role that the arts and humanities play in our daily lives and how expensive it can be for society to short-change these areas of human endeavor. A country that lacks creativity lacks a soul; a country that fails to provide the kinds of perspective that history, literature and philosophy provide is prone to make mistakes in foreign as well as domestic affairs.”

Todd Elkin found that despite of the fact that the state of California officially named visual and performing arts as core subjects in kindergarten, elementary and high school education curricula, there is no standardize test for those courses. This situation shows the existence of an open gap between the assessment in K-12 standards for arts and those regarding other core disciplines such as mathematics or sciences.

Gemma Cooper Novak of Harvard theorizes the reasons why arts education is often marginalized outside of the field. First of all, few individuals have ever experienced quality arts education, and as such have difficulty seeing its value, whereas the significance of arts education is so clear to artists and arts educators that we have difficulty explaining it to others. Secondly, most domains seem obscure to outsiders. Third, arts educators often undercut their field’s search for professional respect by volunteering excessive amounts of their time and services.

There exist many other reasons why arts education may be marginalized: some people genuinely believe art to be without educational value, some think art must be made to serve a “moral” or religious end, some think arts education “precious” and expendable. “I focus on these particular aspects because they can be most readily addressed, and possibly repaired, by the arts education community. I have been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to work and share my experience with people whose domains were far from my own” Gemma Cooper Nopvak suggests.

Meredith Lewis finds that the most troubling notions is presented by the media about art to propagate a view that, “standardized testing and arts education are diametrically opposed to one another where “improved test scores,” “lowest percentile” and “NCLB Report” have been presented to the public in order to reinforce the importance of standardized testing.

According to Eric Oberstein the access is the major concern, and he suggest that arts advocates need to work to engage communities in unconventional ways, especially if the arts are struggling to assume their rightful place in schools. The public often perceives the fine arts as elitist, and many times they appear as such. These art forms and institutions need to work harder on expanding access and education for all.

Margaret Wyporek believes that the marginalization of the arts in public schools is a byproduct of the United States’ (U.S.) need to maintain its place as a leading competitor in the international economic market. Historically, the U.S. has used education as a tool for developing and advancing a competitive workforce with the goal of maintaining its place in the international market-which strained arts education. She also hypothesize that trend of curriculum mandates guided by international policy began in 1957 when the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik 1 an Earth-orbiting satellite into space (Launius). The significance of this event for the education field was a government funded call to action for advanced science curriculum in public schools ideally building a more internationally viable workforce through education (Abramson). This cycle of subject specific government-funded initiatives focused on advancing our country through our public education system has continued through the last half century, pushing the perceived ‘softer’ subjects further into the periphery.

April Lee brings about two contributing views for the current status or marginalization of arts education in the US. The first viewpoint sees the arts as a luxury rather than a necessity — they do not, for example, provide direct skills for running businesses or discovering cures for diseases or innovations in renewable energy. With the rapid development of countries such as China and India, and as the United States struggles to recover from a deep recession, the goal of public education in the current administration is to train globally competitive citizens. The second viewpoint, that it is difficult to standardize and teach art on a large-scale, is also exacerbated by the resource-strapped economy. In order to implement standardized quality arts education for all, research would have to be conducted to measure the efficacy of arts education on student achievement and assessments for learning in the arts would have to be developed. This research and development would require funding, time, and dedication; none of which are readily available during the current financial climate.

Whitney Elliot, Harvard Graduate School of Education student, argues that arts marginalization in the educational system is at times linked to the impact of quality arts experiences in schools. If quality arts experiences do not achieve noticeable benefits for students, school leaders and decision makers are apt to cut arts funding. Reflecting on her experience, and conversations with teachers, administrators, and parents, she realized that dance, music, visual art, or arts integration classes in which students are engaged, challenged, and celebrated, often are surrounded with school communities that will celebrate and protect the arts as central to a quality education. However, in those classes where arts learning experiences are mediocre, the arts themselves are often considered peripheral to a real education.

The arts, which provided much fewer with jobs, took a second seat to the skills necessary to compete in an industrial world. According to my dad, society to a large extent still regards “readin’, writin’, ’rithmetic, and science” as the “the basics” to an education. “I suspect,” he said, “most people like having their schools putting on plays, teaching art and photography, and participating in music programs but they see these programs as secondary in importance to things that will help their kids get jobs”- these were the reflections from Briget Ganske who interviewed her father, a member of the U.S House of Representatives.

In conclusion, one may infer and we believe that many share our view that due political, cultural and economic reasons, the United States Education System historically marginalized Arts Education.