A New Year's resolution for all of you art education supporters would be to do something tangible to save or support our favorite topic at this blog. Now! You can make a financial donation to your favorite arts organization, even sign a petition of outrage over LAUSD's freezing of art funds and art teacher salaries in December until our governor signs a budget (which a month later has still not happened!). Or you can do as Spike Dolomite Ward has done, and go out and secure grant money and give it back to your school to maintain any shred of an art program it has left.
I first heard of Spike in a chance comment made by one of my favorite local NPR commentators, Sandra Tsing Loh. She happened to mention that Spike was busy trying to save art in San Fernando Valley public schools. Whoa! I wanted to meet this woman, and through a variety of twists and turns found her in a closet-sized office in Canoga Park distributing funds she'd raised herself to a couple hundred schools!!!
Spike started off like a lot of moms of little kids entering LA public schools -- she was totally shocked to discover that her kindergarteners' school did not have an art program. And this in the most creative city anywhere, where there are great-paying jobs for those trained in the arts. Being an artist, Spike volunteered in her son's classroom...which spilled over to other classrooms. You know how volunteers are when they're passionate about something. They give!
After a couple of years, Spike found herself making a promise to the school principal -- she'd fund an art program the next year. Spike had been paying for her own supplies when she taught her own classes. Now she'd really put herself on the line. What a daunting prospect: where was she going to get the money for every class, and an art teacher?? She needed at least $14,000 she figured, and it wasn't coming from her grocery money.
Operating out of her garage at first, she did it! In fact, after nine years, she's secured support from something like 30 organizations and foundations. And you have to realize, she's doing this for other peoples' kids. She gives the money for cultural field trips, music lessons, and art supplies free to 200 schools. She funds full-time programs at five elementary schools for students who would not have access to any of it. We're talking about an individual school program that costs around $100,000 a year. All given free!
Don't you think your PTA could at least do that for the children of your own school?
There are another 195 elementary schools in the San Fernando Valley waiting for an art program.
If Spike Dolomite Ward thinks it can be done, then why not join her? A contribution to her arts organization would be an outstanding New Year's art resolution, don't you think? "Arts In Education Aid Council" says it all. I promise the money goes to a good cause. I should know, I now teach in one of the schools Spike supports. You could supply paint and paper and tangibly touch a child's soul.
Here's your New Year's good deed: read all about www.aieac.org and make a donation.
And if you want to help urge the Los Angeles school board to rescue what little is left of the arts programs in LAUSD schools, here's that link. Sign the petition right now. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/restore-funding-for-lausds-arts-partners
Showing posts with label art education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label art education. Show all posts
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Are Some Students More Deserving of Art Education Than Others?
I recently had a conversation with a teacher at an at-risk school in a low-income area about their lack of art education. She voiced an opinion that I've heard in similar locales over the years. She assumed elementary kids in the well-to-do areas of the city had art -- that those parents would insist on art teaching at their schools or pay for it themselves.
It's sad that we've come to expect/accept that kids in our poorer neighborhoods don't "deserve" to have art for one reason or another, the same as the other district students. The excuses can range from financial, lack of parental push, or most usually the notion that the kids have to spend all their time preparing for the tests and couldn't possibly spare a moment for such stuff. Isn't it sad that the teacher serving the at-risk students believes/accepts that she and her school receive second-rate treatment because of who they are?
This is not idle opinion. I was pretty shocked while serving on the board of an alternative high school to hear it voiced publicly in the mid 1990's by a city representative, from the mayor's office no less. No joke. At a large group gathering, we were discussing the possibility of going for a bond to remodel the ancient building housing the school. Over the past few meetings we'd already come to the conclusion that we could perhaps halt the drop-out rate if we installed an art track at the school. We were pretty excited about it. It was going to be first-class.
However, at this meeting to discuss the bond idea, the city rep stated frankly, "Why should the icky kids deserve this?" I was stunned, and embarrassed for her. I've never forgotten that. Because these were the "icky" kids (her exact word, not mine), she didn't feel they should have equal -- or perhaps better than -- the "good" kids at the districts' three regular high schools, who already had art programs. The implication was that the alternative school should be a punishment center without decent facilities or "fun" programs, I guess.
The good news was, we went forward with the bond, the school was beautifully remodeled, an exciting art program (including glass blowing) installed, and attendance rocketed. The alternative school truly became an alternative school -- kids from around the district voluntarily asked to attend so they could enjoy an alternative school experience outside the typical big high school experience. Very gratifying.
I've had the blessed experience to work in three school districts that really did right by their low-end schools. I chose to teach art at the lowest-scoring schools in those districts because I believe art can really make a difference in many ways for those particular students. The districts also believed that it was important to include art, and built beautiful schools in those neighborhoods, not subjecting those students and teachers to substandard buildings. Plus, they (we) enjoyed well-funded art programs.
Those schools were populated by kids facing huge odds. But they were really vibrant places to teach. I should add, they were exhausting, too. But the staffs were incredibly talented and dedicated, as they often are in such schools. Many of our students won art contests, and I made sure student artwork was continuously displayed. When taught creativity, you couldn't tell the difference between our kids' work and the very affluent ones living at the opposite ends of the districts. They proved themselves to be just as talented and creative when given the same opportunity!
It's sad that we've come to expect/accept that kids in our poorer neighborhoods don't "deserve" to have art for one reason or another, the same as the other district students. The excuses can range from financial, lack of parental push, or most usually the notion that the kids have to spend all their time preparing for the tests and couldn't possibly spare a moment for such stuff. Isn't it sad that the teacher serving the at-risk students believes/accepts that she and her school receive second-rate treatment because of who they are?
This is not idle opinion. I was pretty shocked while serving on the board of an alternative high school to hear it voiced publicly in the mid 1990's by a city representative, from the mayor's office no less. No joke. At a large group gathering, we were discussing the possibility of going for a bond to remodel the ancient building housing the school. Over the past few meetings we'd already come to the conclusion that we could perhaps halt the drop-out rate if we installed an art track at the school. We were pretty excited about it. It was going to be first-class.
However, at this meeting to discuss the bond idea, the city rep stated frankly, "Why should the icky kids deserve this?" I was stunned, and embarrassed for her. I've never forgotten that. Because these were the "icky" kids (her exact word, not mine), she didn't feel they should have equal -- or perhaps better than -- the "good" kids at the districts' three regular high schools, who already had art programs. The implication was that the alternative school should be a punishment center without decent facilities or "fun" programs, I guess.
The good news was, we went forward with the bond, the school was beautifully remodeled, an exciting art program (including glass blowing) installed, and attendance rocketed. The alternative school truly became an alternative school -- kids from around the district voluntarily asked to attend so they could enjoy an alternative school experience outside the typical big high school experience. Very gratifying.
I've had the blessed experience to work in three school districts that really did right by their low-end schools. I chose to teach art at the lowest-scoring schools in those districts because I believe art can really make a difference in many ways for those particular students. The districts also believed that it was important to include art, and built beautiful schools in those neighborhoods, not subjecting those students and teachers to substandard buildings. Plus, they (we) enjoyed well-funded art programs.
Those schools were populated by kids facing huge odds. But they were really vibrant places to teach. I should add, they were exhausting, too. But the staffs were incredibly talented and dedicated, as they often are in such schools. Many of our students won art contests, and I made sure student artwork was continuously displayed. When taught creativity, you couldn't tell the difference between our kids' work and the very affluent ones living at the opposite ends of the districts. They proved themselves to be just as talented and creative when given the same opportunity!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Call is Getting Louder to Embrace Creativity Education in Schools
Another call from an expert to reinstate arts to the schools. Sir Ken Robinson says its imperative to make us competitive in the 21st century. Apparently, the Brits have injected a billion dollars into their education system to improve the teaching of creativity. Singapore, South Korea, and China are reinventing their teaching strategies and testing -- opting instead to emphasize the teaching of creativity. They've decided that curriculum based solely to satisfy test scores is counterproductive to innovation. Ahem!
We can't lag so far behind! That would definitely be a creative disconnect. After all, wasn't it the alarm sounded 25 years ago by the report "A Nation at Risk" comparing our students' test scores against these same countries that sent us in our current direction? We've now arrived at this incredibly intense testing frenzy as if it's going to get our country ahead ... and what has it really gotten us? If we don't pay attention to what the rest of the world is now doing, we're off in left field. We need to be in the right field, providing more right brain education.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=6d37953d-0486-43d0-8cc4-c70f389f4b06
We can't lag so far behind! That would definitely be a creative disconnect. After all, wasn't it the alarm sounded 25 years ago by the report "A Nation at Risk" comparing our students' test scores against these same countries that sent us in our current direction? We've now arrived at this incredibly intense testing frenzy as if it's going to get our country ahead ... and what has it really gotten us? If we don't pay attention to what the rest of the world is now doing, we're off in left field. We need to be in the right field, providing more right brain education.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=6d37953d-0486-43d0-8cc4-c70f389f4b06
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Importing Creative Talent Instead of Growing Our Own
Over twenty years ago or so, I got acquainted with the man who was hiring talent at Warner Brothers. As fellow artists and art teachers, we bemoaned what was happening way back then! California's Proposition 13 (freezing property tax at 1978 prices) had been gutting money available to the schools. As a result, he was not able to hire enough US-born talent for the studio's entry level program.
At that point, we were about 10 years into the loss of public school art programs. He said that he almost never, if ever, hired someone from California. I was shocked. A fabulous Los Angeles institution not able to give good-paying jobs to Los Angeles residents! They could find talent from the east coast, but mostly they had begun importing it from India. Imagine that. And it was so expensive for the studio to do that -- $50,000 at 1988 prices! They paid for the visa, helped to buy a home, brought the wife along, etc. I wanted to scream about it from the roof tops. We were cutting our own children off from an education that would provide them wonderful jobs in the creative industry right here. And then complained loudly about foreign talent "taking" the jobs instead.
Has anything changed in the intervening years??? Even Google couldn't find enough creative US educated workforce, and woefully cast an eye offshore. Dear Californians, are you getting the point? Creativity must be taught the same as spelling, or reading, or math. It's not something you grab out of the air.
To the immense credit of the Warner Brothers talent scout, he scraped together a demanding graphic arts program at his local high school in an underserved area of Los Angeles. He knew what the kids needed in their art program before they could even be considered as an intern. Those students had to work extra hard outside of school to make up for the lack of art education from K-10th grade before he got hold of them. They were off to the zoo on the weekends to draw. They took life drawing at the community college at night. It was draw, baby, draw! But he was getting some success for those high schoolers who were driven to make it. Who could help but cheer for them all!
But it shouldn't be so hard. When we recognize that art education provides the foundation for an unbelievable number of industries and jobs that define Los Angeles, we'll start to put it on par with science and math and fund it. The talent's already here; it needs to be educated. It's cheaper to provide meaningful training to work in the creative industries than to let that young talent be idled, unfulfilled, and frozen out from contributing their brain power to fuel our creative economy.
We can change the mindset here. Creativity is about thinking broadly -- looking at things in a different way. Yes, millions have benefited from the windfall Prop 13 has given them over three decades, pocketed their personal pots-of-gold, and not paid their fair share towards our infrastructure. But now that we're seeing the crumbling results thirty years later, we know something's got to be done. Frankly, we crave it. We want thriving, livable communities. We must pay up in order to provide creative schools that prepare students for the well-paying jobs that are right here -- and should belong to them.
At that point, we were about 10 years into the loss of public school art programs. He said that he almost never, if ever, hired someone from California. I was shocked. A fabulous Los Angeles institution not able to give good-paying jobs to Los Angeles residents! They could find talent from the east coast, but mostly they had begun importing it from India. Imagine that. And it was so expensive for the studio to do that -- $50,000 at 1988 prices! They paid for the visa, helped to buy a home, brought the wife along, etc. I wanted to scream about it from the roof tops. We were cutting our own children off from an education that would provide them wonderful jobs in the creative industry right here. And then complained loudly about foreign talent "taking" the jobs instead.
Has anything changed in the intervening years??? Even Google couldn't find enough creative US educated workforce, and woefully cast an eye offshore. Dear Californians, are you getting the point? Creativity must be taught the same as spelling, or reading, or math. It's not something you grab out of the air.
To the immense credit of the Warner Brothers talent scout, he scraped together a demanding graphic arts program at his local high school in an underserved area of Los Angeles. He knew what the kids needed in their art program before they could even be considered as an intern. Those students had to work extra hard outside of school to make up for the lack of art education from K-10th grade before he got hold of them. They were off to the zoo on the weekends to draw. They took life drawing at the community college at night. It was draw, baby, draw! But he was getting some success for those high schoolers who were driven to make it. Who could help but cheer for them all!
But it shouldn't be so hard. When we recognize that art education provides the foundation for an unbelievable number of industries and jobs that define Los Angeles, we'll start to put it on par with science and math and fund it. The talent's already here; it needs to be educated. It's cheaper to provide meaningful training to work in the creative industries than to let that young talent be idled, unfulfilled, and frozen out from contributing their brain power to fuel our creative economy.
We can change the mindset here. Creativity is about thinking broadly -- looking at things in a different way. Yes, millions have benefited from the windfall Prop 13 has given them over three decades, pocketed their personal pots-of-gold, and not paid their fair share towards our infrastructure. But now that we're seeing the crumbling results thirty years later, we know something's got to be done. Frankly, we crave it. We want thriving, livable communities. We must pay up in order to provide creative schools that prepare students for the well-paying jobs that are right here -- and should belong to them.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
