Here's a link to a published article I wrote that parents and educators should find helpful. If you're interested in ways to increase the teaching of creativity in school, I included several that aren't expensive or difficult to do. We just need to redefine exactly what a balanced education looks like!
http://www.caisca.org
When you get to the site, click on Publications. Go to Faculty. My article is found in the Late Spring 2008 edition. Look for "Creativity in the Age of Accountability," which begins on page 6. As it's in a PDF file, you can't download just my article alone. But there's wonderfully creative applications written by other educators as well. This is a publication authored by teachers who gave workshops for their peers.
If this link isn't working when you click on it directly, copy and paste it into the browser above. I can't access the publications through Firefox. However, I can read them in Explorer.
If you'd like me to send you the publication directly, please email me at twcheney@gmail. com.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
A Test That Makes A Difference: Simple Art Assessments
I've long-advocated that kindergartens be given a simple drawing assessment when registering for school. And once in awhile I get teachers to take me up on this. It's actually easy to read these. They provide an immediate visual insight as to where the child is age-wise in his/her development stage.
If a child is drawing like a three-year-old, he's clearly not ready for kindergarten curriculum. He'll be behind before he even begins. This child needs plenty of art practice before he's ready to form or recognize letters. Assessing the drawings would help the teacher group children appropriately and provide insight as to how to plan for maximum learning from day one.
I've done this in first and second grade classes, too. Teachers are expected to meet the learning needs of a wide variety of learners in their classrooms. We've found it helpful to lay the drawings side by side, or pin them up with clothespins. I group them by developmental age as the children's drawings indicate. We look at the class drawings in order from the "youngest" to those drawing at grade level, and beyond. It helps explain visually to the teacher why certain kids are falling behind or can't handle certain aspects of the curriculum. Then hopefully the best intervention will be put in place.
The groundbreaking work on deciphering children's developmental age based on their artwork was pioneered in the 1940s - 1950s. Viktor Lowenfeld's identification of the stages of cognitive development were quite remarkable. In his book "Creative and Mental Growth," he included charts and samples of children's artwork. His work has been expanded, and long-time art educators such as Betty Edwards have added their insights in how to read children's visual work.
I find all this fascinating -- and so easy to do. And cheap! A fortune of education dollars is forced to be spent on extensive, laborious testing. Educators can learn a lot from simple crayons and paper and letting kids draw. This test prep is easy and fun.
This great site compares Lowenfeld's and Edwards' description of each stage of cognitive, visual development. You can see for yourself:
http://www.learningdesign.com/Portfolio/DrawDev/kiddrawing.html
If a child is drawing like a three-year-old, he's clearly not ready for kindergarten curriculum. He'll be behind before he even begins. This child needs plenty of art practice before he's ready to form or recognize letters. Assessing the drawings would help the teacher group children appropriately and provide insight as to how to plan for maximum learning from day one.
I've done this in first and second grade classes, too. Teachers are expected to meet the learning needs of a wide variety of learners in their classrooms. We've found it helpful to lay the drawings side by side, or pin them up with clothespins. I group them by developmental age as the children's drawings indicate. We look at the class drawings in order from the "youngest" to those drawing at grade level, and beyond. It helps explain visually to the teacher why certain kids are falling behind or can't handle certain aspects of the curriculum. Then hopefully the best intervention will be put in place.
The groundbreaking work on deciphering children's developmental age based on their artwork was pioneered in the 1940s - 1950s. Viktor Lowenfeld's identification of the stages of cognitive development were quite remarkable. In his book "Creative and Mental Growth," he included charts and samples of children's artwork. His work has been expanded, and long-time art educators such as Betty Edwards have added their insights in how to read children's visual work.
I find all this fascinating -- and so easy to do. And cheap! A fortune of education dollars is forced to be spent on extensive, laborious testing. Educators can learn a lot from simple crayons and paper and letting kids draw. This test prep is easy and fun.
This great site compares Lowenfeld's and Edwards' description of each stage of cognitive, visual development. You can see for yourself:
http://www.learningdesign.com/Portfolio/DrawDev/kiddrawing.html
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Want Better Test Scores in Low-Performing Schools? Double the Art-Making
I want to continue sharing my insights into kindergarten-age students from my last post.
When children enter kindergarten, they should have had two or three years of drawing experience already (progressing from scribbling to being able to make a representational person). That doesn't mean filling in coloring books that are adult-drawn! Kids are naturally inclined to start making marks between age two and three. You can't teach them to draw better. Just providing paper and crayon for making big movements, and lots of opportunity to create their own imagery, promotes the natural development of large and small motor skills. Kids draw first, then read, then write. That's the progression.
However, the schools are filled with kids coming to school without any practice. Too many homes don't have basic art supplies like paper, crayons, and scissors. Parents don't realize the value of providing this practice to help their children be school-ready, and this applies to affluent families as well as low income. So the kids simply aren't ready. But the kindergarten curriculum now starts at the point where this development should have taken place. There is no time provided in many kindergarten classes to make up for this lack.
If we recognize this and want to improve test scores, kindergarten -- as well as the early elementary grades -- needs to provide double the amount of time spent on art and creativity, not reduce it. The remedial work must be done through art. That's where the gap begins. Kids will then be more ready to take on the accelerated curriculum. Yet at schools where the students score low, the tendency is to cut out the art and"play" to concentrate on writing. Educators, who are trained in child development, are in such a bind. They know they can't leapfrog children's development, no matter how much the state regulators think it can be done.
Kids move through predictable stages of development. It's like learning to walk -- kids spend a lot of time crawling first, figuring it out on their own. It doesn't matter what the adult wants. Children develop on their own timetable to progress to the next level. If the state wants kindergartners to perform beyond their readiness, everybody's time, effort, and money is being wasted. Talk about a creative disconnect! School becomes an endless frustrating fog for these kids. On the other hand, engaging the kids in lots of art to address their developmental needs will do more to improve their abilities faster than giving them piles of worksheets to fill out.
I once received some state grant money to tutor very low kindergartners who were not school-ready. I knew from their backgrounds that they had not had regular access to crayons and paper. Our tutoring sessions involved art-making, not trying to make them to write sentences or sound out words. Scribbling, coloring, and painting worked towards fluidity of movement, teaching their fingers to grasp a pencil as they gained some control to make shapes. Cutting and playing with clay built up strength; gluing helped them focus. They were better able to process their own ideas. When children haven't built up the motor skills schools take for granted, and depend on for success, it's pretty difficult to prod them forward.
Providing art education would transform the kindergarten struggle into a more positive, forward-moving experience. We cannot leapfrog kids over their developmental stages, no matter how dire their test scores. Of course, the panic over scores results in a consequence to the principal who bears the brunt of low scores. It explains the unrelenting push to get kids to perform on subjects that aren't of natural interest to them .
One of the things making me the angriest is that these kids will struggle all through school. Lots of resources and interventions will miss the mark. We have to address the first lack -- no art-making. It only compounds as they get older and the curriculum gets harder. Schools have inadvertently become so one-sided -- lop-sided -- because they must teach only the left-brain type of thinking. The right-brain subjects need to be instructed, too. That's where kids are taught how to problem-solve and work with ambiguity.
Low-income schools with the best principals and fantastically dedicated teachers still can't get the results until we teach the whole mind. Business will continue to experience the "creativity gap" because workers coming from our schools have been taught there's one right answer instead of being able to think expansively. That's what extreme testing and accountability has produced.
When children enter kindergarten, they should have had two or three years of drawing experience already (progressing from scribbling to being able to make a representational person). That doesn't mean filling in coloring books that are adult-drawn! Kids are naturally inclined to start making marks between age two and three. You can't teach them to draw better. Just providing paper and crayon for making big movements, and lots of opportunity to create their own imagery, promotes the natural development of large and small motor skills. Kids draw first, then read, then write. That's the progression.
However, the schools are filled with kids coming to school without any practice. Too many homes don't have basic art supplies like paper, crayons, and scissors. Parents don't realize the value of providing this practice to help their children be school-ready, and this applies to affluent families as well as low income. So the kids simply aren't ready. But the kindergarten curriculum now starts at the point where this development should have taken place. There is no time provided in many kindergarten classes to make up for this lack.
If we recognize this and want to improve test scores, kindergarten -- as well as the early elementary grades -- needs to provide double the amount of time spent on art and creativity, not reduce it. The remedial work must be done through art. That's where the gap begins. Kids will then be more ready to take on the accelerated curriculum. Yet at schools where the students score low, the tendency is to cut out the art and"play" to concentrate on writing. Educators, who are trained in child development, are in such a bind. They know they can't leapfrog children's development, no matter how much the state regulators think it can be done.
Kids move through predictable stages of development. It's like learning to walk -- kids spend a lot of time crawling first, figuring it out on their own. It doesn't matter what the adult wants. Children develop on their own timetable to progress to the next level. If the state wants kindergartners to perform beyond their readiness, everybody's time, effort, and money is being wasted. Talk about a creative disconnect! School becomes an endless frustrating fog for these kids. On the other hand, engaging the kids in lots of art to address their developmental needs will do more to improve their abilities faster than giving them piles of worksheets to fill out.
I once received some state grant money to tutor very low kindergartners who were not school-ready. I knew from their backgrounds that they had not had regular access to crayons and paper. Our tutoring sessions involved art-making, not trying to make them to write sentences or sound out words. Scribbling, coloring, and painting worked towards fluidity of movement, teaching their fingers to grasp a pencil as they gained some control to make shapes. Cutting and playing with clay built up strength; gluing helped them focus. They were better able to process their own ideas. When children haven't built up the motor skills schools take for granted, and depend on for success, it's pretty difficult to prod them forward.
Providing art education would transform the kindergarten struggle into a more positive, forward-moving experience. We cannot leapfrog kids over their developmental stages, no matter how dire their test scores. Of course, the panic over scores results in a consequence to the principal who bears the brunt of low scores. It explains the unrelenting push to get kids to perform on subjects that aren't of natural interest to them .
One of the things making me the angriest is that these kids will struggle all through school. Lots of resources and interventions will miss the mark. We have to address the first lack -- no art-making. It only compounds as they get older and the curriculum gets harder. Schools have inadvertently become so one-sided -- lop-sided -- because they must teach only the left-brain type of thinking. The right-brain subjects need to be instructed, too. That's where kids are taught how to problem-solve and work with ambiguity.
Low-income schools with the best principals and fantastically dedicated teachers still can't get the results until we teach the whole mind. Business will continue to experience the "creativity gap" because workers coming from our schools have been taught there's one right answer instead of being able to think expansively. That's what extreme testing and accountability has produced.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
The Next Art-Free Zone: Kindergarten
It used to be that when art programs were slashed in the elementary schools, at least kindergarten was the last bastion of painting, drawing, and weekly, if not daily, art projects. Who couldn't imagine that five-year-olds would at least be the lucky ones still getting to enjoy their right-brain creativity exercises. One expects to find creativity still lurking around the corners of the kinder classroom.
But alas, anything that resembles art has been banished in some kindergarten classrooms. I'll never forget the day a kindergarten teacher ran into the art room on Valentine's Day, stunned that the principal had just made an upsetting proclamation. The little kids were coloring pictures related to the holiday. When the principal had come into the room, she acted as if the teacher was doing something wrong with her class. The principal announced that there would be no more coloring in kindergarten! They had to spend all the time getting in their academics.
Unfortunately, this true story illustrates the preposterous stress schools face. Second, we've lost all perspective about kindergarten age children. Third, art is "academic," regardless of the wild misinformation out there.
Where to begin sorting this out?
Since education was commandereed by the accountability movement (not necessarily an all bad thing), schools are ranked on test scores. We all know this. Meeting this expensive demand means less money has been available for what used to be considered normal components of education and the school day. Just to arm students with never-ending practice worksheets preparing for the tests has gobbled up school budgets nationwide (and mowed down our forests).
School administrators are in a bind: they have to carefully mind their budgets, even while their staffs copy increasing blizzards of worksheets. Copy paper is their most expensive item, often breaking the bank. Having taught in three states, I can attest to this universal response to test-prep. Art supplies can seem expensive. If a principal doesn't grasp the importance that art brings to the school experience, not only does the expense look frivilous, but the time spent engaged in a right-brain, authentic, hands-on activity once a week does, too. Employing an art specialist? A school could get two aides instead to tutor low-performing kids in reading or math. It's a trade off. It's not balanced, but the bottom line is panic over test scores. Period.
One of the consequences of the accountability push is that kindergarten has become the most pressured grade of all, in my opinion! In Texas, and I'm sure in other states as well, some of what had been the second grade curriculum has been shoved clear down into kindergarten. Five-year-olds are expected now to write sentences before they can even hold a pencil. Their day too is filled with worksheets. Some kids with a lot of experience under their belt can do this if their parents or progressive preschool provided it. But this push comes at the time when more and more kids are not getting the normal early childhood preparation that might enable them to do this. It's especially true in many low income homes.
A rather narrow, anemic view of "academic" has developed. Teachers are expected to cover a big amount of material. It ends up looking like worksheets and textbooks. It feels entirely left-brain. It's analytical, not creative. There is no time in the school day for teaching innovative thinking. But somehow, the adults making these curriculum decisions believe children will be able to do this without instruction or time spent cultivating it. They'd never do that with spelling or math. Let's face it, we have gotten stupid with all this testing. We've lost sight of the children and how they develop.
But alas, anything that resembles art has been banished in some kindergarten classrooms. I'll never forget the day a kindergarten teacher ran into the art room on Valentine's Day, stunned that the principal had just made an upsetting proclamation. The little kids were coloring pictures related to the holiday. When the principal had come into the room, she acted as if the teacher was doing something wrong with her class. The principal announced that there would be no more coloring in kindergarten! They had to spend all the time getting in their academics.
Unfortunately, this true story illustrates the preposterous stress schools face. Second, we've lost all perspective about kindergarten age children. Third, art is "academic," regardless of the wild misinformation out there.
Where to begin sorting this out?
Since education was commandereed by the accountability movement (not necessarily an all bad thing), schools are ranked on test scores. We all know this. Meeting this expensive demand means less money has been available for what used to be considered normal components of education and the school day. Just to arm students with never-ending practice worksheets preparing for the tests has gobbled up school budgets nationwide (and mowed down our forests).
School administrators are in a bind: they have to carefully mind their budgets, even while their staffs copy increasing blizzards of worksheets. Copy paper is their most expensive item, often breaking the bank. Having taught in three states, I can attest to this universal response to test-prep. Art supplies can seem expensive. If a principal doesn't grasp the importance that art brings to the school experience, not only does the expense look frivilous, but the time spent engaged in a right-brain, authentic, hands-on activity once a week does, too. Employing an art specialist? A school could get two aides instead to tutor low-performing kids in reading or math. It's a trade off. It's not balanced, but the bottom line is panic over test scores. Period.
One of the consequences of the accountability push is that kindergarten has become the most pressured grade of all, in my opinion! In Texas, and I'm sure in other states as well, some of what had been the second grade curriculum has been shoved clear down into kindergarten. Five-year-olds are expected now to write sentences before they can even hold a pencil. Their day too is filled with worksheets. Some kids with a lot of experience under their belt can do this if their parents or progressive preschool provided it. But this push comes at the time when more and more kids are not getting the normal early childhood preparation that might enable them to do this. It's especially true in many low income homes.
A rather narrow, anemic view of "academic" has developed. Teachers are expected to cover a big amount of material. It ends up looking like worksheets and textbooks. It feels entirely left-brain. It's analytical, not creative. There is no time in the school day for teaching innovative thinking. But somehow, the adults making these curriculum decisions believe children will be able to do this without instruction or time spent cultivating it. They'd never do that with spelling or math. Let's face it, we have gotten stupid with all this testing. We've lost sight of the children and how they develop.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Who Will Fund Future Innovation Training in Schools?
There's an interesting block of voters emerging that link the issue of US innovation, creativity, and arts funding for the schools. They've been nicknamed "Imagine Nation." A survey of 1000 voters was taken in December 2007. It uncovered a preference towards candidates that support funding for the arts in education. The school reform they're pushing for is one that meets the demand for creative thinkers able to compete in the 21st century global economy. It gave me hope to read that "73% of voters believe that education in and through the arts is just as important as the so-called "basics." Only 19% of respondents feel the US is ahead in innovation. Check out the website http://www.imaginenation.com/
If you'd like to know how your states' legislators have voted in the past on bills related to the arts, there's a score card maintained at www.artsactionfund.org/pdf/specialreports/2006/congressional_report_card.pdf. It's behind the times, but you can see the trends.
What stands out starkly nationally is the huge number of Republicans scoring a "D" or "F." I must note an A+ for one Republican in NY, who voted 100% for the arts. He must be a maverick! Nearly every Democrat earned an "A" or "B," with many voting 100%. It's clear that Republicans have gutted attempts to bridge the widening "creativity gap" our economy is experiencing going up against other nations. If this is an issue that would determine your support for a candidate or party, take a look at that website. If you don't like what's become of American education, or the state of our creative economy, there's something to consider in these voting records.
In CA, here's the shakedown of our legislators:
Democrat / Republican
A+ (100%) 9 ----A+ 0
A 15 ------------ A 1
B 9 --------------B 2
C 2 --------------C 3
D 0 --------------D 6
F 0 --------------F 6
If you'd like to know how your states' legislators have voted in the past on bills related to the arts, there's a score card maintained at www.artsactionfund.org/pdf/specialreports/2006/congressional_report_card.pdf. It's behind the times, but you can see the trends.
What stands out starkly nationally is the huge number of Republicans scoring a "D" or "F." I must note an A+ for one Republican in NY, who voted 100% for the arts. He must be a maverick! Nearly every Democrat earned an "A" or "B," with many voting 100%. It's clear that Republicans have gutted attempts to bridge the widening "creativity gap" our economy is experiencing going up against other nations. If this is an issue that would determine your support for a candidate or party, take a look at that website. If you don't like what's become of American education, or the state of our creative economy, there's something to consider in these voting records.
In CA, here's the shakedown of our legislators:
Democrat / Republican
A+ (100%) 9 ----A+ 0
A 15 ------------ A 1
B 9 --------------B 2
C 2 --------------C 3
D 0 --------------D 6
F 0 --------------F 6
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Girls Need Drawing to Express Themselves
In the last post, I talked about why boys need to have at least some of their school subjects presented in hands-on, authentic, creative ways. Well, girls need this too, of course. But their needs are quite different.
Letting kids draw during the school day activates their entire thinking process. Drawing is the way children think. They naturally draw as small children. Little kids are happy drawing. They don't make judgements about the quality.
But around age ten - twelve, all kids need instruction to help them do what they want to do -- draw more realistically to express their maturing ideas. Drawing becomes a struggle for some because they compare themselves to competent peers or adults. This seems to be a human development stage. Kids need help getting over the hurdle. How this was handled in your case probably still reverberates deep down. I've found this to be especially true for women decades later. A negative experience in art has lasting power because it hits the core.
Girls need art instruction because they don't tend to draw the things that boys do. They get stuck drawing such symbols as hearts, rainbows, and flowers. Ask any 4th or 5th grade teacher. It's universal. I was really struck by this when my daughter -- who always had lots of art opportunity in her experience -- started drawing those same cliches. They looked just like the ones I was doodling in sixth grade.
Around that time, a lot of girls start closing down -- either covering up their drawings or not drawing at all unless forced to do so like making a poster or report. They can see that their work doesn't measure up. This is especially hard on girls who have the rest of school mastered. They feel inadequate. The solution is not to cut out art. Duh! Girls need systematic instruction and encouragement.
Here's an article I wrote with simple art and teaching creativity ideas for teachers and parents. The publication is from Arts in Education Aid Council (AEAC). Look for "Welcome Back to the New School Year":
http://www.chatsworthchamber.com/attachments/f59/30d1221871470-2008-aeac-fall-volume-9-issue-1-aeac_vol9-issue1_r4_final.pdf
Letting kids draw during the school day activates their entire thinking process. Drawing is the way children think. They naturally draw as small children. Little kids are happy drawing. They don't make judgements about the quality.
But around age ten - twelve, all kids need instruction to help them do what they want to do -- draw more realistically to express their maturing ideas. Drawing becomes a struggle for some because they compare themselves to competent peers or adults. This seems to be a human development stage. Kids need help getting over the hurdle. How this was handled in your case probably still reverberates deep down. I've found this to be especially true for women decades later. A negative experience in art has lasting power because it hits the core.
Girls need art instruction because they don't tend to draw the things that boys do. They get stuck drawing such symbols as hearts, rainbows, and flowers. Ask any 4th or 5th grade teacher. It's universal. I was really struck by this when my daughter -- who always had lots of art opportunity in her experience -- started drawing those same cliches. They looked just like the ones I was doodling in sixth grade.
Around that time, a lot of girls start closing down -- either covering up their drawings or not drawing at all unless forced to do so like making a poster or report. They can see that their work doesn't measure up. This is especially hard on girls who have the rest of school mastered. They feel inadequate. The solution is not to cut out art. Duh! Girls need systematic instruction and encouragement.
Here's an article I wrote with simple art and teaching creativity ideas for teachers and parents. The publication is from Arts in Education Aid Council (AEAC). Look for "Welcome Back to the New School Year":
http://www.chatsworthchamber.com/attachments/f59/30d1221871470-2008-aeac-fall-volume-9-issue-1-aeac_vol9-issue1_r4_final.pdf
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Boys' Trouble in School: Maybe They Need More Art
Last week, there was an article on Newsweek.com that caught my eye about the struggle school-age boys are having. There were numerous reasons sited, and possible solutions given. As a long-time educator, I've experienced the upheavals in society, parent-rearing, and the education system. But as an art educator, I've gained some unique insights that the author of the article and many experts miss.
Here's the deal: we've always heard that girls develop/mature linguistically faster than boys. We accept that to various degrees, almost as a put-down to boys. But what are boys doing at the same time? They are developing their spatial intelligence. This is crucial to know. Watch what they do -- they build, practice drawing realistic subjects like cars and rockets and robots, play with Legos, actively do things with others, and study the details on bugs.... It's always intrigued me that this spatial intelligence is expressed in the type of work many men are drawn to -- architecture, engineering, art, and being able to estimate the amount of boxes needed to pack up a house of furniture. They are good at these types of visual puzzles. However, school rarely addresses the style of learning that many boys crave, little yet acknowledging their spatial intelligence.
School is geared to the subjects that can be easily measured. These are "left-brain" skills. Reading, math, spelling, grammar, etc. are subjects that follow patterns, require one right answer, are logical, and taught methodically. It's possible to teach specific strategies to improve in these areas fairly quickly -- which school does well. However, with the extreme push being forced upon children and teachers alike to excel in these subjects, the "right-brain" activities that actually nourish kids, and boys in particular, have been shunted aside. They require lots of think-time and doing, and school doesn't have that kind of time anymore under the current regime.
There's little left in the school day that honors the way boys learn best.
I thought when I got my masters this would be the topic I'd study for my thesis. But I ended up doing a project involving intervention models for at-risk middle school kids. Had I gone for my PhD, maybe then I'd have been able to set up a formal study just to prove officially what I already know. But I think working with thousands of elementary age children in the art room has given me plenty of insight that I didn't get in the regular classroom teaching one grade level. I've had the advantage of working with K-6 grade students on a daily basis.
There are certain things that have held true over the decades because they relate to child development. They've held true working in three states, in numerous school districts rural, suburban or urban, in schools serving the well-off, the economically disadvantaged, the homeless, and new immigrants. Kids are kids. They pass through very predictable stages of visual, creative thinking development. When this is ignored by adults, it's not the child's fault. Not teaching to this intelligence strips boys of their ability to process the typical subjects in a meaningful way.
My first real inkling of this was when I was asked to serve on a committee for the alternative high school in one community in the 1990's. They were struggling with their dropout rate and wondered if putting in an art strand might help. I spent time in the classes, chatting with students. What I couldn't help noticing was the predominant number of boys in the school. And how many of them doodled really well. It struck me that traditional teaching had failed them; they'd really fallen through the cracks far earlier in their school career. That set me to looking at what we were doing in elementary and middle school. Oh by the way, they instituted that art strand -- including glass blowing -- and had 99% attendance rate.
By the way, I'm not a fan of the "left-brain/right-brain" lingo. However, they've become acceptable mainstream models to explain complex thinking processes. They were actually coined twenty-five years ago by art teacher Betty Edwards. Her book, "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain," has spawned numerous new approaches to old topics such as spelling, even if we don't get to practice them.
You can read the full article "Struggling School Age Boys" from September 8, 2008 at http://www.newsweek.com/id/157898
Here's the deal: we've always heard that girls develop/mature linguistically faster than boys. We accept that to various degrees, almost as a put-down to boys. But what are boys doing at the same time? They are developing their spatial intelligence. This is crucial to know. Watch what they do -- they build, practice drawing realistic subjects like cars and rockets and robots, play with Legos, actively do things with others, and study the details on bugs.... It's always intrigued me that this spatial intelligence is expressed in the type of work many men are drawn to -- architecture, engineering, art, and being able to estimate the amount of boxes needed to pack up a house of furniture. They are good at these types of visual puzzles. However, school rarely addresses the style of learning that many boys crave, little yet acknowledging their spatial intelligence.
School is geared to the subjects that can be easily measured. These are "left-brain" skills. Reading, math, spelling, grammar, etc. are subjects that follow patterns, require one right answer, are logical, and taught methodically. It's possible to teach specific strategies to improve in these areas fairly quickly -- which school does well. However, with the extreme push being forced upon children and teachers alike to excel in these subjects, the "right-brain" activities that actually nourish kids, and boys in particular, have been shunted aside. They require lots of think-time and doing, and school doesn't have that kind of time anymore under the current regime.
There's little left in the school day that honors the way boys learn best.
I thought when I got my masters this would be the topic I'd study for my thesis. But I ended up doing a project involving intervention models for at-risk middle school kids. Had I gone for my PhD, maybe then I'd have been able to set up a formal study just to prove officially what I already know. But I think working with thousands of elementary age children in the art room has given me plenty of insight that I didn't get in the regular classroom teaching one grade level. I've had the advantage of working with K-6 grade students on a daily basis.
There are certain things that have held true over the decades because they relate to child development. They've held true working in three states, in numerous school districts rural, suburban or urban, in schools serving the well-off, the economically disadvantaged, the homeless, and new immigrants. Kids are kids. They pass through very predictable stages of visual, creative thinking development. When this is ignored by adults, it's not the child's fault. Not teaching to this intelligence strips boys of their ability to process the typical subjects in a meaningful way.
My first real inkling of this was when I was asked to serve on a committee for the alternative high school in one community in the 1990's. They were struggling with their dropout rate and wondered if putting in an art strand might help. I spent time in the classes, chatting with students. What I couldn't help noticing was the predominant number of boys in the school. And how many of them doodled really well. It struck me that traditional teaching had failed them; they'd really fallen through the cracks far earlier in their school career. That set me to looking at what we were doing in elementary and middle school. Oh by the way, they instituted that art strand -- including glass blowing -- and had 99% attendance rate.
By the way, I'm not a fan of the "left-brain/right-brain" lingo. However, they've become acceptable mainstream models to explain complex thinking processes. They were actually coined twenty-five years ago by art teacher Betty Edwards. Her book, "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain," has spawned numerous new approaches to old topics such as spelling, even if we don't get to practice them.
You can read the full article "Struggling School Age Boys" from September 8, 2008 at http://www.newsweek.com/id/157898
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
A Return to Los Angeles
We left Los Angeles twenty years ago. Not that we really wanted to, but for us educators not making enough to buy even a studio-sized condo in the toughest section of the city, we had a toddler and wanted a real home. In the late 80's, it was a middle class/professional migration out in search of housing. Coming back, it's like returning to a time-warp, only everything that needed fixing back then is worse. Housing prices?! Even with the downturn, we're back to renting a condo.
Having raised our daughter in far more affordable circumstances, we wanted to come back to the city that values creativity -- or does it? We'll be examining that question and what we can do about it in this blog. As an art educator, it's downright dismal. For the city, not tending to creative education has had a detrimental effect. But the business community nationally is starting to sound the alarm. And because of that, I have great hope. It was the business community that rightfully sounded the alarm twenty-five years ago when they were having to spend too much on basic remedial education for workers. The schools responded.
Now the business community is seeing the result of ignoring a key part of education -- teaching students how to think. In the rush to beef up measurable scores -- left-brain subjects as some would say -- the unmeasurable, right-brain subjects were discarded. As fluff. As expendable. As something only for those who could afford to get it on their own, or "deserved" it. All of the arts educators who've been sidelined for a quarter century (since the publication of "Nation at Risk" in 1983) have been screaming about this, along with frustrated parents. Now, finally, the business community is raising its voice. Could it be that we'll be gaining some balance? Soon?
Having raised our daughter in far more affordable circumstances, we wanted to come back to the city that values creativity -- or does it? We'll be examining that question and what we can do about it in this blog. As an art educator, it's downright dismal. For the city, not tending to creative education has had a detrimental effect. But the business community nationally is starting to sound the alarm. And because of that, I have great hope. It was the business community that rightfully sounded the alarm twenty-five years ago when they were having to spend too much on basic remedial education for workers. The schools responded.
Now the business community is seeing the result of ignoring a key part of education -- teaching students how to think. In the rush to beef up measurable scores -- left-brain subjects as some would say -- the unmeasurable, right-brain subjects were discarded. As fluff. As expendable. As something only for those who could afford to get it on their own, or "deserved" it. All of the arts educators who've been sidelined for a quarter century (since the publication of "Nation at Risk" in 1983) have been screaming about this, along with frustrated parents. Now, finally, the business community is raising its voice. Could it be that we'll be gaining some balance? Soon?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
