liberal and fine arts educators to partner together to incor- porate music and the other arts into classroom instruction to enrich tested subject areas. Research suggests that schools that identified as “arts focused” tend to be more successful at finding a balance between art and the integrated content area. However, successful implementation often hinges on the socio-economic status of the population served (von Za- strow, & Janc, 2004). In many cases, high-poverty schools struggle to successfully implement integrated teaching, resulting in the implemented subject becoming subservient to the other content area (Mishook & Kornhaber, 2006). Additional studies indicate a change in curricular expecta- tions for arts classes. Pederson (2007) finds an expectation for non-tested subject areas to include more “core material” in their instruction. Gerrity (2009) and West (2012) similar- ly found that administrators wanted arts specialist to teach skills in reading and mathematics in addition to traditional course content.
Others have examined the impact of standardized testing on access to non-tested subject areas. Heilig, Cole, & Aguilar (2010) found that “students who had failed the Texas As- sessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), the lynchpin of AYP in the state, were pulled out of fine arts classes to participate in TAKS remediation efforts” (p. 140). A similar situation developed in Louisiana. Baker (2012) documented a shift in state legislation, allowing districts to overrule fine arts graduation requirements to allow students to participate in remedial instruction and test preparation. In these ways, school districts and state officials created access barriers for students who had failed to meet benchmarks set by NCLB, compounding inequities and access gaps between popula- tions. Numerous other researchers have suggested the same effects (Baker, 2012; Beveridge, 2010; Lehman, 2012; Shuler, 2012; Spohn, 2009; von Zastrow & Janc, 2004).
Subject-Area Marginalization Numerous researchers have documented the marginaliza- tion of the arts in school curriculum as a result of NCLB. The Center on Education Policy (2006; 2008) and the Council for Basic Education (von Zastrow & Janc, 2004) both articulate a decrease in time allocated toward non- tested subjects. Several others corroborate this finding (Ashford, 2004; Jackson & Gaudet, 2010; Pederson, 2007; Spohn, 2009). Henley et al. (2007) cite an elimination of gifted and talented programming due to standardized test preparation. Gerrity (2009) addresses the tendency of districts to marginalize the curricular position of the arts in order to ensure student success in reading and mathematics. Beveridge (2010) best articulates a growing concern among scholars: “If we marginalize all non-tested subjects, we create a system in which only the most affluent members of our society have access to the most comprehensive and well-rounded educations, which widens the achievement
29
gap, rather than closes it” (p. 6).
Music educators have watched this scenario play out in urban areas across the country. In the 2013-2014 academic year alone, the city school districts in Buffalo (New York State School Report Card, 2014), Philadelphia (Pennsylva- nia Department of Education, 2014), and Michigan’s capi- tal, Lansing (Michigan District and School Accountability Scorecard, 2014), made national news because of their decisions to dramatically alter or completely eliminate arts programming for students in their districts due to budget constraints. These three cities share demographic character- istics: they are ethnically diverse, their students are eco- nomically disadvantaged, and a majority of their schools are ranked in the bottom 30 percent in their state for failure to make adequate yearly progress. If NCLB is designed to guarantee a “world-class education” (U.S. Department of Education, 2010, p. 1) for all students, why are the arts be- ing taken from the students it purports to help?
Looking Forward
No Child Left Behind currently is up for reauthorization. A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the El- ementary and Secondary Education Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) opens with a declaration: “Every child in America deserves a world-class education” (p. 1). In the opening of this document, President Barack Obama pens a letter to the public articulating that the United States is falling behind other countries in college completion. He cites this as problematic because “the countries that out- educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow” (p. 1). The proposed reauthorization advocates the importance of “a complete education” that includes literacy, mathematics, science, technology, history, civics, foreign language, and the arts. Most important, however, is the emphasis placed on equity and opportunity for all students. The reauthoriza- tion specifically states the need for improved educational opportunities for “English Learners and students with dis- abilities to Native American students, homeless students, migrant students, rural students, and neglected or delin- quent students” (p. 4), as well as the need to “move toward comparability in resources between high- and low-poverty schools” (p. 5). Theoretically, the pending revisions are de- signed to foster equitable educational opportunities for all students. In practice, researchers argue, NCLB is substitut- ing one form of educational inequity for another (Spohn, 2008).
The desire to close the achievement gap between privileged and underprivileged populations is noble, but how much should school districts be willing to sacrifice to achieve this goal? Some students are being deprived of high-quality arts education in order to protect teachers and administrators from termination, and schools and school districts from
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40