Does your school need a school improvement plan for creativity?
Spoiler Alert: yes.
In their Newsweek article "The Creativity Crisis," Bronson and Merryman cited a poll that indicated that creativity is considered the critical leadership competency by CEOs (http://www.newsweek.com/creativity-crisis-74665).
Dan Pink wrote a blog post about how China is embracing creativity in education (http://www.danpink.com/2010/07/quote-of-the-day-the-real-reason-china-is-laughing-at-the-us/). He posted about the misalignment between business and school superintendents regarding the most important elements of creativity (http://www.danpink.com/2009/01/the-problem-with-problems/). He also suggested that the Great Recession might have been due in part to the actions of people who lacked long-range, empathetic, or imaginative thinking (http://www.danpink.com/2008/10/too-many-left-brains-spoil-the-pot/).
Let's pause for a moment. These are not calls for personal expression and fulfillment from the hippy-dippy crowd. These are arguments for creativity that are rooted in economic development.
Then, let's acknowledge that there are many who consider the economic justification of education anywhere from short-sighted to nefarious. For many, education is about the development of the whole person in order to lead a more fulfilling life.
Everywhere you look, creativity is cherished. And yet, it is systematically excluded from school improvement plans, primarily due to lack of accountability pressure via standardized testing.
Do we measure what we treasure, or vice versa?
The PLC process does not need to be the enemy of the fine arts. Robert Eaker published an article about including art in school improvement plans (http://www.allthingsplc.info/files/uploads/ArtEducationAndTheEffectiveSchools.pdf). I say, if it's important enough for one of the primary PLC authors, it's important enough for your school. Let's move past school improvement plans with two goals.
Stop using SMART goals, PLCs, and standardized testing as excuses to marginalize the arts. We can make this work, but only if we acknowledge its importance.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Teacher Evaluation and Creativity
We've all seen the posters. Music is math, music is reading, music is history, etc., but most of all, music is music.
Why put the most important thing last?
Fine arts educators have to admit some culpability here. Because we are not regarded as a core subject by the average person, we have worked hard to advocate for ourselves. That often includes attempts to highlight the non-artistic benefits of arts education.
Unfortunately, some educators are reaping what we have sown. After decades of comparing the arts to so-called academic subjects, fine arts teachers are now being evaluated on reading and math. These teachers often feel de-valued, and are rightfully concerned about the validity and reliability of such measures.
We need to refresh our efforts, and we need to Start with Why.
The purpose of the fine arts is not to improve literacy and mathematics. Indeed, visual art was often used to convey ideas to pre-literate citizens. One purpose of art is to create works in a medium that embody feelings.
The Why has three parts: creativity, the medium, and feelings. If this is Why we have fine art, then these elements should drive instruction. Teacher evaluation should examine the effectiveness of this instruction - not literacy and mathematics.
Many Professional Learning Communities get caught up in the wrong Why by assuming that creativity cannot be assessed. This leads these PLCs to rely on standardized literacy tests to evaluate fine arts teachers. However, we can clearly assess whether something is novel, expressive, or engaging. We do it all the time in our daily life.
While there are many technical papers about the assessment of creativity, fine arts educators might have better luck citing Grant Wiggins when trying to convince PLC administrators of this point. Wiggins is the co-author of the widely used Understanding by Design framework, and he is a known and respected name in the field. Wiggins states simply that we can assess creativity, and we should assess creativity. Check out his outstanding article at http://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/on-assessing-for-creativity-yes-you-can-and-yes-you-should/
Fine arts educators have always needed to educate stakeholders about the value of our work. However, we are now seeing the dark side of over-selling arts education. Let's redouble our efforts, but let's stay focused on the right Why. It's the only way to have genuine advocacy.
Why put the most important thing last?
Fine arts educators have to admit some culpability here. Because we are not regarded as a core subject by the average person, we have worked hard to advocate for ourselves. That often includes attempts to highlight the non-artistic benefits of arts education.
Unfortunately, some educators are reaping what we have sown. After decades of comparing the arts to so-called academic subjects, fine arts teachers are now being evaluated on reading and math. These teachers often feel de-valued, and are rightfully concerned about the validity and reliability of such measures.
We need to refresh our efforts, and we need to Start with Why.
The purpose of the fine arts is not to improve literacy and mathematics. Indeed, visual art was often used to convey ideas to pre-literate citizens. One purpose of art is to create works in a medium that embody feelings.
The Why has three parts: creativity, the medium, and feelings. If this is Why we have fine art, then these elements should drive instruction. Teacher evaluation should examine the effectiveness of this instruction - not literacy and mathematics.
Many Professional Learning Communities get caught up in the wrong Why by assuming that creativity cannot be assessed. This leads these PLCs to rely on standardized literacy tests to evaluate fine arts teachers. However, we can clearly assess whether something is novel, expressive, or engaging. We do it all the time in our daily life.
Fine arts educators have always needed to educate stakeholders about the value of our work. However, we are now seeing the dark side of over-selling arts education. Let's redouble our efforts, but let's stay focused on the right Why. It's the only way to have genuine advocacy.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Teacher Evaluation - Start with Why!
Welcome back to Round Pegs! We took a bit of a summer break.
Teacher evaluation came up again.
"High stakes tests are fine for tested subjects. What about fine arts, technical arts, or physical education?"
The stock answer: "Everybody is a literacy teacher. Evaluate teachers on literacy."
If the feelings embedded in the fine arts could be expressed in words, we would have no need for the fine arts. Stravinsky once said that "music means itself." The arts can produce a visceral response that a description of the arts cannot. But we can even make a distinction between artistic writing and descriptive writing. John Ciardi wrote How Does a Poem Mean because the question "What Does a Poem Mean" is silly. As if Emily Dickinson couldn't express herself cogently, so we need a professor to translate for us.
To be fair, I want literate citizens, and reading and writing are among the Mother Subjects. But when we evaluate fine arts teachers on literacy outcomes, we start with the wrong Why. "Because We Don't Have Standardized Arts Tests" isn't a good reason to hold teachers accountable for literacy.
But what happens if we meet the CCSS crowd half way? Let's say that everybody is responsible for every student's literacy score. What portion of student growth would you attribute to the high school band director? What portion goes to the 8th grade visual arts teacher? How about the 5th grade theater teacher?
Here's the answer: none of the above. This level of confidence in statistics is pure hubris. But don't take my word for it. Read https://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf to see the position of the American Statistical Association.
Start with Why. Why do we teach the arts? The answer is not to improve literacy.
For more information, check out Simon Sinek's TED talk at http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action
Teacher evaluation came up again.
"High stakes tests are fine for tested subjects. What about fine arts, technical arts, or physical education?"
The stock answer: "Everybody is a literacy teacher. Evaluate teachers on literacy."
If the feelings embedded in the fine arts could be expressed in words, we would have no need for the fine arts. Stravinsky once said that "music means itself." The arts can produce a visceral response that a description of the arts cannot. But we can even make a distinction between artistic writing and descriptive writing. John Ciardi wrote How Does a Poem Mean because the question "What Does a Poem Mean" is silly. As if Emily Dickinson couldn't express herself cogently, so we need a professor to translate for us.
To be fair, I want literate citizens, and reading and writing are among the Mother Subjects. But when we evaluate fine arts teachers on literacy outcomes, we start with the wrong Why. "Because We Don't Have Standardized Arts Tests" isn't a good reason to hold teachers accountable for literacy.
But what happens if we meet the CCSS crowd half way? Let's say that everybody is responsible for every student's literacy score. What portion of student growth would you attribute to the high school band director? What portion goes to the 8th grade visual arts teacher? How about the 5th grade theater teacher?
Here's the answer: none of the above. This level of confidence in statistics is pure hubris. But don't take my word for it. Read https://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf to see the position of the American Statistical Association.
Start with Why. Why do we teach the arts? The answer is not to improve literacy.
For more information, check out Simon Sinek's TED talk at http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)