Would that headline raise your eyebrows? Of course it would.
So why is it no big deal that a GAO report shows that only 7% of schools spend less time on the arts under No Child Left Behind? As one headline put it, ”GAO finds school arts curriculum not hurt by standardized testing”
Over at Eduwonk, Andy says that if the report had shown a higher percentage of schools reporting a loss of class time on the arts there would have been a big stink. I have no doubt that’s true. But it’s equally wrong (not that Andy says this) to dismiss concerns about curriculum narrowing by saying it’s “only” seven percent of schools. Also, the GAO report notes teachers at schools identified as needing improvement and those with higher percentages of minority students were more likely to report a reduction in time spent on the arts.
FIrst, there’s every reason to be skeptical of data gathered by estimating time spent on a subject rather than measuring it. But more to the point, why suggest that curriculum narrowing at “only” seven percent of schools is not a cause for concern? If a prescribed drug had adverse side effects in “only” seven percent of patients–and a higher rate among poor and minority patients (!) – it would be subject to an immediate recall and the line of lawyers filing suit would “only” stretch for miles.
It’s easy to dismiss these findings when it “only” happens in someone else’s school.
I have not poured over the methodologies and results of the GAO report in detail, but one thing does jump out. According to the GAO, most elementary school teachers-about 90 percent-reported that instruction time for arts education remained the same between school years 2004-2005 and 2006-2007.” If I were filling out the survey, I would have reported no change during that time period too. My students had almost zero art and music time during the 2004-2005 school year. Two years later? Still almost none.
No change.
Keeping in mind that I also think the results of the GAO report are suspect, I think your FDA analogy is flawed for two reasons.
First, is it true that students are harmed whenever some of their art instruction is replaced by, say, reading instruction? This strikes me as non-obvious.
Second, the FDA approves dangerous drugs all of the time – ever listen to pharmaceutical ads on TV? – because they’re likely to be helpful to some other group of people, or because the benefits of taking the drug outweigh the harm, even in the “7%” who suffer side effects.
Actually, on closer reflection, those might be a single objection framed in two different ways. But in any case, I think there’s some question-begging going on.
I’m making a rhetorical point, Paul not (thankfully for the sake of the nation) suggesting health policy. The reason I see curriculum narrowing as something to be avoided at all costs is because of the contention that a well-rounded curriculum is the route to reading comprehension, critical thinking, etc. This is one of the overarching idea underlying much of E.D. Hirsch’s work (forgive me if I don’t attempt a summary, but here’s an article from American Educator that gets to the idea: http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring06/hirsch.htm). The paradox is that increasing reading instruction–if that consists of mindless “reading strategies” and incoherent text at the expense of core curriculum–disadvantages a child’s ability to comprehend. Indeed, that’s one of the things that irritates me about the curriculum narrowing argument. There is no shortage of people who think that increasing explicit reading instruction is desirable and seen through that lens curriculum narrowing, especially in struggling schools, is a GOOD thing. Once the connection is made clear (See Dan Willingham’s You Tube video “Teaching Content is Teaching Reading” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiP-ijdxqEc) you start to appreciate the limitation of this idea.
So the proper headline might be “NCLB Only Damages 7% of Children Reading Comprehension.” If the report also found that low-income and minority children were more likely to be harmed by the accountability push, we wouldn’t be quite so cavalier about it.
I mean, I’m all about teaching lots of content. But I still say it’s begging the question to go from “7% of children get less art education” to “7% of children are harmed and/or have reduced reading comprehension”. I can *imagine* a way that that reduction of art education would reduce kids reading comprehension, but I haven’t seen any evidence that that harm has actually taken place, or even that art education has a clear relationship with achievement in general. For example, I can imagine kids getting lots of bad reading instruction, but I can also imagine a lot of kids who are in need of some good reading instruction, and I don’t know why you’re assuming the 7% are all in the former category and none are in the latter.
Robert:
But you have to agree that a possible decrease in 7% of schools is considerably different than the wholesale loss across the board that many have been decrying. I might also suggest that the correlation is far from causal–particularly when it appears to be concentrated in the schools that get shortchanged ALL the time with regard to the distribution of anything good that might be available. Perhaps it is possible that in 7% of schools administrators harbor the misapprehension that eliminating things like art and recess will improve reading and math scores.
Another thought–maybe those schools where the decision-makers have cut out the arts might benefit from some of the aims of something like, oh, the things that are generally referred to as 21st century skills–you know creativity and innovation and all that. Seems like art might survive a bit longer.
I might also suggest that the correlation is far from causal–particularly when it appears to be concentrated in the schools that get shortchanged ALL the time with regard to the distribution of anything good that might be available.
I don’t think that necessarily argues against causality. Instead I would argue that the logic of NCLB is seen in its purest form in the most challenged schools. NCLB has “teeth” only in schools that receive Title I funding. When a non Title I school fails to make AYP the only consequence is bad press — so there’s little reason to cut art to raise test scores since cutting art also leads to bad press. When a Title I school fails to make AYP for a few years in a row they have outside advisers monitoring their plans for improving test scores, and increasing instructional minutes on “core standards” is an obvious plan.
The 7% figure over just two years is an average. The worst damage was done to poor schools.
But let’s get real. Does Robert’s point really need explaining? We spent tens of billions of dollars on NCLB and its a victory for the law when the damage appears to be less than feared
Short art and music classes allow other teachers to have some in-school planning time. For that reason, the positions are likely to stay in place except in the gravest fiscal crunches.
Even so, if the main point is to help other teachers by supervising their students, the program can easily be a weak one. The classrooms can be overcrowded and undersupplied. Young teachers in those subjects may get less support and mentoring, and veteran teachers who need to strengthen their work may receive little encouragement/pressure to do so. Even the time can be too brief for good work and too often canceled or interrupted for other things.