 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2008-01-27 14:02
A question slightly off topic:
How does Culture in the US normally work? Do you have a minister of culture in the federal administration or is all that taken care of in each separate state? Is there ever any tax money involved in cultural events, occasional or even permanent institutions like museums, theatres and orchestras or are they exclusively private funded? Can small groups like a string quartet or a chamber orchestra apply for public money for their survival or are they left to market economy and how do they survive in that case?
The reason I’m asking is that culture in Europe is almost always paid for by the government in some way. Private sponsoring always comes on top of that if the institution or group is lucky enough to get any at all. I’ve never understood how much Capitol Hill is involved with culture in America and I hope someone can clarify this to me.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2008-01-27 14:29
Basically, we have the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which has a yearly budget that a few years ago was about 140 million dollars. That's 140 million for the whole country. Culture is not a priority for the government; it rests almost solely on the private sector. Taxes are not popular with many this country and neither are government programs. There are grants available from a few national and a few state institutions, but most of the money comes from individual donations. This is true for symphonies. Ticket sales bring in only a fraction of the needed income. There are tax-exempt status for organizations that declare themselves "non-profit," as almost all arts organizations are. There is a long history of philanthropy here because, without the private sector, there is no support for culture. To frame this fully, the city of Berlin, Germany's arts budget is 9 billion dollars. The USA's arts budget is 140 million and there are people who would like to eliminate it completely. The US and European countries have different spending priorities stemming from long-standing views on taxes, government spending, socialism, etc. I hope this helps.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2008-01-27 15:17
Thanks. It clarifies a lot. I would like to hear more people’s opinions about this situation without getting too political a discussion. It's just interesting to compare the two different systems. People can be happy/unhappy with a system on good grounds.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Molloy
Date: 2008-01-27 15:41
That situation changed here in the USA drastically during the Reagan years. I don't know what the actual dollar amounts were previously, but the tone of the discourse was reset, the Arts now being alternately framed as decadent and perverted, or irrelevant and elitist, or frivolous and wasteful.
This trend is not limited to the Arts; we are developing away from being a civil society at all, to where people's only true connections are to their immediate family and to their money. Of course, broad generalizations are often inaccurate when looking at individual cases.
Post Edited (2008-01-27 17:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2008-01-27 16:08
Alphie,
In general, the US federal government has very little involvement in the arts. Most of the money comes from local governments (States or cities) and private sponsors (corporate or individuals).
Thankfully the donor culture is much more prominent here than in Europe, where the public expects their taxes to pay for the arts (and education and healthcare, etc.). Here there is a strong tradition of donating your money to your local organizations. Some like it as it gives a sense of control over what they donate and to whom they give the money.
I was born and raised in Europe, but have lived in North America for over ten years so I have a bit of a perspective on both world. The US system can work very well for the arts, but is very heterogeneous. If you live in Boston and are in the arts, life is pretty good, but this is definitely not true of smaller towns with less money to support costly organizations such as Fine Arts Museum or Symphony Orchestra. It also means tickets to go see the Symphony are usually more expensive here than they are in Europe.
Musical education here is also almost exclusively private and there isn't a uniform curriculum such as the French conservatory system or the British Royal College of Music. This allows for a lot of flexibility on how one can run a music program, a museum or an orchestra and gives rise to some fantastic organizations. The flip side is a lack of uniformity across the country with regards to quality and impact of the arts in local communities.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2008-01-27 16:18
The only culture in the US is in yogurt ![[hot]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/hot.gif)
(ok, no flames...its a joke)
Against the windmills of my mind
The jousting pole splinters
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2008-01-27 16:33
Post-Reagan, federal funds for the arts are more forthcoming when projects specifically celebrate "American values" or the achievements of our armed forces. Meanwhile education guidelines downplay the importance of music and art, possibly affecting the size of any potential audience in the future.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2008-01-27 17:02
CPW's observation is no joke! But, we also have culture in wine vats, beer kegs, antibiotic labs, and other places, but much of American culture can be practices professionally with only a modicum of preparation.
Culture is more (c)rap than listenable music.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2008-01-27 19:25
That (c)rap wasn't so bad early on, say with "All American Boy" in the 1950s on up to about "Funky Cold Medina" of about the late 1980's. Then, somewhere in there it turned dirty and violent. About the only claim to fame it has now is the ground shaking contra-bass continuo that you can hear coming from about a mile away. (A lot of deafness coming up in 20 years)
I have always considered myself pretty broad minded in accepting music of virtually all genres, but to me rap is just an extreme fringe that is indicative of the direction so much of our modern day musical culture has taken in recent decades.
I don't know that government support for the "fine arts" (not much agreement today on what that is) would change things one bit. It might help financially strapped cultural organizations (orchestras, art museums, operas, ballets, plays, etc.) to stay afloat, but even with reduced ticket prices, will it really bring in any significant increase in the public.
I miss all the "fine arts" that used to be on the regular commercial TV networks . . . living way out in the rural heartland, my first and only exposure to ballet, opera, Shakespeare, etc. was the radio and TV. As a kid I had a big old wooden console radio with a "tuning eye" tube, a dinner plate size dial, and a bunch of short wave bands. From about 5 or 6 years old on up to high school, I listened to BBC, Radio Moscow, Radio Quito, the Italian station that always carried La Scala, etc. and heard all the "good" music . . . even Khachaturian, as I didn't care anything about the politics (when they started talking I tuned to another music program).
I still listen to short wave (on a modern solid state radio) and there is still a lot more good music available where the government subsidizes the arts. The big money donors in the corporate world do look at Nielson ratings and audience size to see where they need to put their money to get the "biggest bang for the buck"; those "fine arts" venues more often come out the loser ther, and so they must raise ticket prices, which is more then T.C. Mits (Joe Lunchpail) can afford, reducing ticket sales, causing ticket prices to rise, which . . . ad infinitum.
Do these things run in cycles like sun spots or El Nino? Will things turn around and the public support for the arts increase. Will some of the violence, gore, and mayhem abate some to allow some room for Mozart or Verdi or Adam?
Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2008-01-27 19:35
Sylvain wrote: >In general, the US federal government has very little involvement in the arts<
Yes, our Constitution is founded on the concept that there are many areas of society that aren't really the purview of government. This is very different than the concept of the state in Europe. I find much wisdom in this concept even as it is eroded from within and without the government.
Sylvain also wrote: >Thankfully the donor culture is much more prominent here than in Europe,<
We have found consistently that when taxes are lowered, philanthropy goes up. People give more when they are allowed to keep more of what they earn. Plus, it spares taxpayers from unwillingly paying for a host of programs that the citizen either would not choose to support financially or that the citizen flat-out opposes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-01-27 19:40
Will "No child left behind" be recognized for what it is and be cast aside, instead of hamstringing our arts programs which in turn is driving a sizeable nail into the coffin that is holding american art?
Scary prospects.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-01-27 21:23
I think it is far better for our children to learn how to take tests. How else are they going to get the degrees that guarantee success, happiness, and wealth?
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bubalooy
Date: 2008-01-27 21:34
Ok, I'll play the guy that everybody can scream at for a moment. Especially since I live in Europe and enjoy immensely the benefits of taxes used to support the arts. But really, why should citizens be forced to contribute money to organizations that they have no interest in? If the organization cannot succeed financially, why should it exist. If it doesn't have the drawing power to make a profit, perhaps that is the public saying that they don't need it. I am not convinced there would be any less music made in the world if there were no professional musicians whatsoever. People would still play. People would still listen, at least sometimes. Perhaps we'd lose some stellar performances and even some of those emotional never forget evenings in the concert hall, but should someone who has no interest in it be forced to pay for my enjoyment of the opera? I love the symphony. I go and listen and I'm glad the German citizens are paying for it so I can hear it at a reasonable price, but if Americans choose not to support classical music museums, I can't say they are necessarily wrong.
By the way, I'm sending my check to support this board tomorrow. I hope all of you either have or will.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-01-27 22:05
The American education system has been slowly filtering arts out of the schools. That is why no one is interested. That is why they don't go to arts events as much as in other first world countries.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2008-01-27 22:06
-- "People give more when they are allowed to keep more of what they earn." --
Ah, but our beloved European governments worked that out decades ago!
That's why we pay approx 20% tax on products bought in the shops - but called VAT/TVA/IVA (UK/Fr/Ital).
So you see, it's not 'tax' on your salary... but we're all to stupid to see it as a 'tax'.
Tax on petroleum is approx 80% of the price, but it's called 'Duty'. Not 'tax'.
So that's okay..?
Ditto for alcohol and tobacco.
Of course, we then pay VAT (sales tax) on it. But we don't complain. We don't have time. Too much dross to watch on the obligatory brain sedator that everyone has to use unless they want threatening letters from the 'Brown Broadcasting Company' (BBC).
Sorry, I mean the television.
Then there's the local council taxes/Taxe d'habitation - taxe fonciere(Fr)/ICI (ital) that go up every year well beyond the inflation rate and has to be paid for out of money that's already been taxed.
In the UK, some services paid for out of income tax were made the responsibilty of local authorities, so the government could claim to be 'cutting taxes' while making us pay even more via local taxes.
I think the last politician to admit this was quietly taken and used as a central support in the channel tunnel! ;-)
In Italy, even if I don't use any gas, electricity and make no phone calls, I still have a large bill.
In Europe, being able to keep more of what you earn ceased to be an important factor a long, long time ago. But it's surprising how many people -and political parties - still see it as a talking point.
Steve
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2008-01-27 22:28
Bubalooy: I really can't disagree with you on that as I don't really have the right to expect T.C. Mits to foot the bill for professional performances of symphony music, opera, and ballet when the overwhelming majority of the population voted with their dollars (that otherwise could have been spent on classical music and theatre) at the local Wal Mart or other music vendors.
How did the public vote? They made multi-zillionaires out of rock, country, and, yes, even rap stars. Meanwhile, the classical folks are working day jobs to pay the bills. Is it fair to subsidize them?
I don't know, but your average farmer might get a bit tongue tied trying to answer that question, while listening to Hank William, Jr. on his MP3, as he stands in line at the bank, preparing to deposit his latest farm subsidy check. We provide government support for everything from outmoded & failing industries to studies of the sex life of some microbes.
I suppose, I must reluctantly agree with you, in that things might need to rise of fall on their own merits, but in this real world some do receive government support - - which ones? Why those that get out the vote, and ye olde classics don't have the constituency to swing elections. Since the public doesn't support the arts, one can hardly expect the government to do so.
Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2008-01-27 23:05
Sylvain said:
"Musical education here is also almost exclusively private and there isn't a uniform curriculum such as the French conservatory system or the British Royal College of Music."
My clarification:
I wouldn't call "music education" private, exactly. It's true there is no "standard" training program for it nationally or even on the state level, but in the USA nearly all of the "music ed" that happens is from the local schools. Sure, we private teachers frequently have a better handle on the individual instrument instruction than do the band directors, but we can't cover music theory, history, and literature in one 30 minute lesson a week! The band directors, orchestra directors, choir directors, and general music educators are a large part of that.
I suppose I'd call music ed here VARIED! 
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Molloy
Date: 2008-01-27 23:24
<We have found consistently that when taxes are lowered, philanthropy goes up. People give more when they are allowed to keep more of what they earn.>
Who is this "we" you speak of? I have found no such thing.
<Plus, it spares taxpayers from unwillingly paying for a host of programs that the citizen either would not choose to support financially or that the citizen flat-out opposes.>
I, an American taxpayer, do unwillingly pay for a host of programs that I flat-out oppose or that I would choose not to support. Defunding the arts certainly does NOT spare me from that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Johnson
Date: 2008-01-27 23:50
My apologies for the long post, but I cam across this interesting book review a while back. This thread reminded me of that, so I thought I'd post the review here. I hope I'm not violating any forum rules that I can't remember...
Mike Johnson
Napa, California
*************************************
A Constructive Take on the U.S.-French “Culture Wars”
De la Culture en Amérique
By Frederic Martel
Editions Gallimard, 2006, 613 pages
Reviewed by François Clemenceau
This book has become a highly topical must-read among cognoscenti of the French-American relationship, especially anyone who pays attention to the special dimension of “cultural politics” in which the U.S. free-market approach contrasts with France’s tradition of state-run arts and culture. At a time of generational transition in France, Martel’s excursion on American culture with a view to influencing France – his title “On Culture in America” harkens back to Tocqueville’s “On Democracy in America”– has been respectfully noticed in American circles. The reception was more wary in France, where it has triggered a mixture of admiration for the author’s reporting and some controversy about the author’s message.
In his book – and it’s a big one in every sense – Martel has done the equivalent of heaving a boulder into the pond of cultural affairs; the waves seem bound to ripple on, quietly for the moment but perhaps with a bigger splash as events play out. Initially, the reaction has been respectful of his work and guarded about its implications. But the questions and pressure for reforms raised in Martel’s book seem likely to gain traction under the new government of President Nicolas Sarkozy and perhaps even trigger some re-examination of French cultural dogmas among the Socialist-left.
Essentially, the book shatters a taboo in up-ending the widespread French assumption that in America “culture” is reserved for a happy few (generally rich) cultivated people while the rest of the country has a steady diet of no culture or cartoonish low-brow pop culture. Martel contests this picture of what happens in America, painstakingly documenting a situation in which key living cultural experiences and values are fostered in the U.S. system to reach a vast public throughout a very culturally diverse nation. In cataloguing the myriad of ways that culture reaches audiences and rewards creators in the United States, Frédéric Martel, 40, a former French cultural attaché in Boston, carefully demonstrates how this American approach brings “culture” to a wide public, including marginal groups of the population who are often excluded from mainstream experience. And Martel constantly underscores how American culture flourishes without ever having to depend on government help and without ever becoming vulnerable to the vagaries and bureaucratic distortions of a state-administered system.
An unspoken message has been carefully planted by Martel in his work: that key features of the American approach would be easy for France to adopt in a way that made the French system more adaptable and perhaps more sustainable.
Working with an eye to the idea of transplanting American techniques to France, Martel describes in detail – thanks to hundreds of interviews – the mainstays of the institutional landscape in the United States. Starting with the history of private patronage and endowments, Martel carefully catalogues public-private partnerships between museums and corporate sponsors. He describes how cultural policies in the United States are totally decentralized thanks to local cooperation between cities and private foundations. He dwells on the theme of how Americans learn about the arts, as performers and as public, from early childhood right through university, from institutions of learning that function on their own without any direction, from a single cultural arbiter laying down a monolithic vision from the top.
The book has been widely praised for making his case with factual reporting that was conspicuously free of polemics on a hot-button issue. As the cultural critic of the New York Times, Alan Riding (who is based in Paris), wrote in his review: “what really intrigues Mr. Martel is how American culture flourishes despite the indifference or hostility of major government institutions.” Martel demonstrates, Riding wrote, that in the United States, “if the Culture Ministry is nowhere to be found, cultural life is everywhere.”
In an interview with Riding, Martel, who first visited America to promote his earlier book about the exclusion practiced against homosexuals in France, provided his take on another hot-button issue: multiculturalism. “Americans defend cultural diversity at home and deny it abroad,” he said, “while France defends cultural diversity around the world and refuses it at home.” For Martel, this approach helps explain why minorities often seem better integrated in the United States, where they can pursue their own cultural roots, than in France, where they are expected to conform to the centralized model.
With this vision, it is not surprising that Martel has emerged since his return to France as one of the left-wing intellectuals who has most radically challenged the core values of his political family on the issue of cultural policy. It has been an article of faith among the French left (and often among the right, too) that America pursues a Hollywood-driven “cultural imperialism” that is the international reflection of the “cultural vacuum” that many people associate with Middle America. It is a rarely-challenged assumption that the American “cultural industry” cannot produce works of high quality because of the pressures to generate profits in a mass market.
While Martel’s book challenges these stereotypes, he studiously shuns any direct comparisons between the United States and France and does not even provide funding figures to contrast subsidized cultural investments and spending in France with the flow of money into cultural programs in the United States. As the reviewer in Le Monde newspaper confirmed, “the author avoids head-on confrontation” in a book that is clearly intended to let readers and policy-makers draw their own conclusions. Like Tocqueville, the author is describing a foreign model – and describing it well – for the purpose of jogging people in France to think about what might be emulated and what should be cut. Given his purpose of influencing opinion in France, it is logical that this thick tome has not been published in English, at least not for the time being.
In France, Martel has pitched the equivalent of a bombshell into the cultural fishbowl in Paris and the provinces and started a debate that seems certain to continue in the new situation of a conservative government, self-described as modernizing, and the Socialist-left opposition militants who will look for issues and rear-guard battles to fight as a way of maintaining morale in their ranks. Publicly, the initial reactions have actually been guarded. Leading left-leaning media of the cultural establishment, such as Le Monde newspaper and the weekly Nouvel Observateur, both gave extensive coverage to the main themes in the book, and Martel himself used his website (www.fredericmartel.com), which is produced in English as well as in French, as a platform for launching reform ideas during the presidential election in France on the theme of how to jolt France out of its history of using culture as a form of centralized control to protect the status of the French elite. Many of Martel’s suggestions come directly from his investigations on the ground in the course of doing research for his book: as he explains the merits and success on the American scene of institutions such as endowments and goals such as “outreach” to the excluded, Martel is palpably frustrated – and even jealous – about the difficulties of getting France to change some of its own practices faster.
He ought to be encouraged by the choice of France’s new minister of culture – Christine Aubanel, whose previous functions included a stint at the head of Versailles, the great château, where she led efforts to forge a more dynamic public-private partnership to support this crown jewel in France’s cultural patrimony. Her approach helped consolidate the loyalty of American patrons whose funding has played a crucial role over the years in safeguarding the heirlooms in the Old World (including “Old Europe!”) and adding to their luster for new generations to appreciate.
Passionate as he is about the need for change, Martel does not go in for denigrating the value of France’s achievements in promoting its national culture. In interviews about his book (particularly in American media), he consistently takes the view that France can be rightly proud of what it has done to enhance and promote its cultural legacy and to work at ensuring access to French culture for the widest possible cross-section of the population. At the same time, he constantly stresses his conviction that France needs to “privatize” its state-run system of high culture. What France must do, he says, is shake up the establishment of gate-keepers in the present system of cultural promotion and broaden the representation in the cultural bureaucracy (including those running regional and local programs) to be more inclusive and bring in more voices from ethnic minorities and other social categories that today are out of contact with France’s tradition of culture.
François Clemenceau is the Washington-based correspondent of Europe 1, the French radio network.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Neal Raskin
Date: 2008-01-28 01:18
I am a Music Education Major at Concordia College in Minnesota. For the past several years I have been very enthusiastic about teaching. I have been so excited to get "out-there" and teach music in public school. With the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) gaining strength (or at least public opposition decreasing), I have lost some of my will to teach music in public schools. This is a shame if you ask me.
<<edit>>
My apologies for mistaking your sarcasm James.
Thanks, for the tip Alex.
<<edit>>
On another note,
I would like to know if anyonecan tell me why the government supports sports organizations with tax exemptions, and funding which are clearly "for-profit"? It seems our culture in America is very athletics oriented. This would explain why people who don't even graduate college can make millions of dollars a year. But who cares if they can talk like a normal human being if they can throw a football for 26 touchdowns a season!!! It seems like being intelligent is no longer a goal of some if not most Americans. The goal is now "how can i get rich quick???" This has drawn attention away from real professions and the arts, subsequently increasing costs of doctor visits and symphony tickets...
I pray that people will not forget those special moments and friendships they made in music, or their first visit to Orchestra Hall to hear the Symphony.
I sure hope I can teach music someday...
Neal
www.youtube.com/nmraskin
www.musicedforall.com
Post Edited (2008-01-28 02:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Johnson
Date: 2008-01-28 01:59
I have tended to support No Child Left Behind. With a sufficiently large exam question bank, and provided the test questions are based on course objectives, there should be nothing wrong with teaching to the test.
There are many problems in our schools here in California, and NCLB is forcing these problems to be resolved. By measuring to a common standard, we can now see where the problem areas are. We had schools in Oakland that were claiming graduation rates of 70 and 80%, but were actually only graduating 50%. Of course nobody noticed until the numbers were measured and something didn't seem to add up. Also, with better measurement of the end result, it should, at least in theory, open up the teaching process for greater innovation. So far, this seems to be happening.
I would like to see NCLB modified to permit other models of standardized testing besides written exams, such as oral board presentations and evaluation of hands-on performance (ideal for auto shop, music, and art). And, of course, determining the appropriate level of funding is a topic that warrants more discussion.
Not sure where this places me on the political spectrum...strong supporter of standards and even stronger supporter of music programs...
Mike Johnson
Napa, California
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2008-01-28 02:19
I think Neal's touched on a central point of "Culture" in America in the past 10 years. To wit, the prevalence of athletics in our society. Fundamentally, Americans seem to be more impressed by physical feats than by intellectual prowess.
I may be taking this to a petty point, but I think it's visible even in certain jobs here. Why do we _tip_ people (hairdressers, baristas, waiters, mail carriers) who perform physical tasks for us and not "mental" ones (counselors, teachers, librarians, booksellers)?? Of course the wage scale is different for waiters, but I can't see that paying upwards of $75 for a haircut means a hairdresser is making less than minimum wage.
Sadly,
Katrina
Post Edited (2008-01-28 02:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2008-01-29 15:15
When school districts interpret "No Child Left Behind" to mean that music and other arts programs get the axe in favor of more focus on rote test preparation, we end up with "Every Child Left Behind."
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cass Tech
Date: 2008-01-29 16:11
I'm tempted to wander into politically controversial waters, but bite my tongue. Lelia has said what has to be said and said it succinctly. Lelia Loban, I suspect we have far more in common than the clarinet.
Cass Tech (aka leatherlip)
amateur clarinetist
political activist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-01-29 17:02
Here and I missed the whole thing about my missinterpreted sarcasm...I should have checked back sooner!!
Lelia, you are dead on the money.
NCLB generally teaches to the median of any class or worse, and those who can (or could) achieve more easily stagnate while waiting for the rest of the class.
Mike: NCLB may work wonderfully in California. Here in Virginia it is hampering everything, and to top it all off Virginia state standards are HIGHER than NCLB.
The educators still have to test to the Federal level, and as Lelia pointed out programs that do not advance a school system's certification get cut so that the funding can be funneled towards programs that will enable the certification.
Most of us remember taking a class in which we studied the material well enough to pass (or even ace) a subject...and yet today we are no longer able (or interested) in being able to apply the knowledge. We learned how to take the test.
Don't you think that the children of America aren't learning the same thing?
Serious trouble.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Johnson
Date: 2008-01-29 20:18
James, I suspect you did not read my post thoroughly. If you base the test on the course objectives, and you have, say a question bank of 10,000 problems for a 10 question test, then teaching to the test IS teaching to the course objectives. Isn't that the purpose of taking the course? Let's say the the kids somehow sponge up all 10,000 questions in an effort to cheat on the test...GREAT! Objectives completed! My other big point was that there are other methods of evaluating learning beside written exams. Oral boards and hands-on performance are valid measures and should be used for areas like music and the arts. NCLB needs to be modified in this direction.
There are two issues here that often get blurred together. One is, "What standards should be applied and measured in our schools?" The other is, "What subjects should be included in the courses taught?" Right now, music courses sometimes get cut to support the first objective. The solution is NOT to throw out the standards, but rather to tweek the standards to include more music.
Personally, I want solid standards for my investment of tax dollars. I want measurable results that prove kids are learning while ensuring that bad schools are identified and fixed (a real problem here in California). I do not think this is unreasonable. I should not have to send my kids to private schools to get a decent education, either.
We should not throw out an entire program which has produced very positive results in schools around the country. Some say that you can't have standards for music and the arts. Or that you can't have music if you have standards. I disagree. These kids are learning basics. I want good music programs with good standards that prepare them for more advanced study down the road, whether for professional performance or private appreciation. And that, to bring this around to the original topic of this thread, will help keep our musical "culture" alive.
Mike Johnson
Napa, California
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2008-01-29 22:34
Mike,
We once had a great educational system that gave students a positive education. A system that allowed the qualified students that our universities produce to teach the students in their classroom. Standards of the No Child Left Behind program vary from state to state, and, as previously mentioned, are not national standards, but impositions in the classroom that frustrate the best interests of students and teachers alike.
We should value the products of our educational system in our classrooms, and give our teachers a chance to teach without putting unrealistic shackles on them. Yes, this response deviates from the original question about culture in the United States, but it does address the myth that NCLP is actually giving our children the educational tools they need. As previously mentioned, rote memory is not the solution, teaching to the test is not the solution, but engendering the wonder of knowledge and the ability to communicate what is learned will give us creative and intelligent citizens, and, to use a well worn cliché, a better tomorrow.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2008-01-29 22:44
FDF wrote:
> As
> previously mentioned, rote memory is not the solution, teaching
> to the test is not the solution,
But some countries, such as Japan, emphasize rote memorization and teaching to tests up until at least the end of high school. Whether or not I agree with that educational premise, it works.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2008-01-29 23:21
It was fairly easy to learn my addition, subtraction, multiplication and division tables by rote memory, and I have not forgotten a single part of them in more than forty years. Rote memorization does work for certain parts of certain subjects. This is not to say that it is a solution for every learning challenge, but it is part of a well-rounded educational background.
Part of the blame for the decline in learning levels goes directly to the lack of parental involvement from early childhood to graduation. "Parents" of this type expect the schools to do all the work, and get exactly what they have invested into their children's' educations: Not a whole lot. To compound this, add an educational system which whitewashes truth with political correctness and unproven "sciences" and you have the second contributing factor. Add a total lack of discipline in the schools, for fear of "crushing someone's precious self-esteem," and you have the recipe for disaster. Self esteem is useless without self-respect, and you earn that for yourself by accomplishing goals under trying circumstances. Our schools never allow students to fail, and in so doing, fail the students miserably. By the time kids are released from high schools, few of them are ready for either work in the real world or advanced studies in college.
Trying to foist all of the blame on the No Child Left Behind program is ludicrous. These kids were not being educated LONG before that concept ever came into play.
Jeff
“Everyone discovers their own way of destroying themselves, and some people choose the clarinet.” Kalman Opperman, 1919-2010
"A drummer is a musician's best friend."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2008-01-30 00:40
Mark, Of course, Japan suffered from a high rate of high school suicides regarding educational status and learning, I wouldn't want our schools to use their ideals as a standard.
Jeff, Nobody said that rote learning was not part of education, but when memorization becomes a major portion of educational values, then the true love of learning is in jeopardy. Why? Because, understanding concepts and how to apply them, creativity, and critical thinking are far more important. Also, Teachers need to be given some credit for their ability to teach and to understand their students.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-01-30 01:11
And again into the fray:
Jeff, FWIW, I do not assign all blame to NCLB. (not even close!).
Mike, my statement that NCLB is "hampering everything" is incorrect. It isn't hampering the aim of NCLB.
"If you base the test on the course objectives, and you have, say a question bank of 10,000 problems for a 10 question test..."
This is not what exists!
Many schools take TWO and even THREE practice tests before doing actual testing which will rate performance and ultimately determine certification (which means $$$$ or lack thereof).
"Oral boards and hands-on performance are valid measures and should be used for areas like music and the arts. NCLB needs to be modified in this direction."
NCLB, and the climate it has created, needs to be modified to recognize the arts as essential and not optional:
http://www.americansforthearts.org/services/arts_education/arts_education_015.asp
Again Mike, my state had higher educational standards before NCLB and is now required to test for the Federal level. NCLB should be tweaked to allow states with higher standards to go about their own business.
If you want accountability for poor schools in the state of California then you should seek redress in the government of California!
How about the fact that immigrant students who barely speak english are tested as regular students? Or those with learning disabilities? NCLB is more than just a bit flawed.
And no one has tried to deny the reduction in teaching time or quality (caused by NCLB) because of the need to attain and maintain certification? Why is that acceptable?
My wife and her friends feel that their yearly teaching time is reduced by as much as 15%! This equals 27 days, or five weeks of teaching.
James
Gnothi Seauton
Post Edited (2008-01-30 02:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Johnson
Date: 2008-01-30 04:40
FDF, you views sound somewhat idealistic.
You state, "We should value the products of our educational system in our classrooms, and give our teachers a chance to teach without putting unrealistic shackles on them."
We've been trying that for 40 years. It hasn't worked. Our schools, nationwide, have been performing poorly. What is your solution? Should we just give them MORE money, despite the fact that several states, California included, have conducted studies proving that more money won't fix the problem?
Your reference to Japan's suicide rates is inappropriate. You neglect the centuries-old cultural significance placed on suicide in Japan. I highly doubt we would see a similar thing here, and I think it is a poor argument for your case.
50 years ago, we did have higher standards. Guess what? Our students grew up to invent the internet, reinvent music, and end the Cold War. Now, our students invent new meth recipes, worship Britney Spears, and couldn't tell Russia from Antarctica.
I'll vote for better standards, thanks. The kids deserve it.
Mike Johnson
Napa, California
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Johnson
Date: 2008-01-30 04:58
James,
You will find no disagreement from me that NCLB does not provide 10,000 question exam banks for 10 question tests. This is one of the tweeks that I would like to see, and that is why I mention it. But not having it now does not warrant throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I also agree that NCLB needs to recognize the arts as mandatory.
Regarding non-English speakers, I think there needs to be a separate category for kids learning English. But there had better be measurable progress. Learning disabilities also need separate evaluation. But, again, these are minor tweeks. This is much more preferable to me than throwing out the whole program.
As far as state versus federal control of education, I would strongly support states running their own programs. Unfortunately, our educational system is heavily dependent upon the feds. If anyone can find a way to dismantle the Department of Education, count me in. Until then, NCLB seems to be the best option. Come to think of it, it is the only option...no one else has put forth any other serious plan worthy of consideration!
Oh, and there should be mandatory clarinet choirs for all grades K-12! ;-)
Mike Johnson
Napa, California
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2008-01-30 05:01
Here we have a system that is borrowed from both Europe and the USA. We have the lack of investment in arts from the govenrment like in the USA (probably worse, but I don't know for sure), but we also have the high taxes like in Europe. A winning combination....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mary Jo
Date: 2008-01-30 11:05
I think this all boils down to the nuclear family of a child. When the parents both work, the quality of life and learning for the child suffer. When the parents aren't good a parenting, the child is disadvantaged. When no one adult is there to guide and nuture a child, the young one finds a mentor on television or on the streets.
The government is not a parent, though it is a mostly a competent babysitter for parents that both work or otherwise put parenting on a low priority.
This is just my opinion, of course. Take it for what it's worth from an old GI and teacher.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-01-30 11:12
Mike,
It is NCLB's implementation and effect that are the reasons it should be dismantled.
Those in the Fed. Gov. see NCLB as a success...what leverage do you have to persuade them to make any changes in the program?
Creating more tests is not what they are going to do...so those who are ESL, or mentally disabled will not be getting a seperate testing format (with seperate prep times, classes, etc...).
There are ten subject areas that are considered fundamental to NCLB: language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.
Only reading and math are tested. The schools have no time, means, or interest in testing for the rest. They are not important to certification.
Funding/time will be diverted away from untested subjects towards any effort to achieve and maintain certification. The arts lose this battle by the greatest amount every time.
Any standardized testing that is weaning out the arts is providing a disservice to America in the long run.
Respectfully, James
Gnothi Seauton
Post Edited (2008-01-30 11:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2008-01-30 11:47
Just to clarify, I'm not against rote learning for all things at all times. My grammar school in California taught addition, subtraction and multiplication by rote, for instance, and I think that was a good, efficient way to teach kids basic arithmetic. When the "New Math" landed on us in my 5th grade class (1958--for people outside the USA, 5th graders are typically 10 years old), chaos ensued.
Up to a point, it's useful to teach some aspects of creative subjects such as writing, art and music by rote, as well. I don't regret learning to sing the alphabet, learning how to diagram a sentence, learning the difference between cadmium red and vermillion or memorizing CDEFGABC, FACE, Every Good Boy Does Fine, Good Boys Do Fine Always and the other fundamentals of artistic expression. I don't recall those lessons as boring, either. I liked learning those things and then applying them. That's partly because a quiet, structured environment suits my temperament--but it's also because, along with the rote memorization, my classmates and I enjoyed a great deal more freedom than young students seem to get today, at least here in Virginia.
Our teachers assigned us to read books of our own choosing, write book reports and write essays about other subjects. Tests included essay questions. During art classes (in our regular homerooms), we learned to use the compass and straight edge, but we also drew and painted without restriction and without copying. We ran around the playground in unstructured recess and lunch periods where we had to experiment and learn for ourselves how to interact with other living, breathing, in-your-face human beings. Not least, we could join the school band or choir. By high school, my classmates and I could also choose between concert band, orchestra or dance (swing) band as regular classes for credit.
That school district regarded artistic and social expression, not as rewards for obedience or good test scores, but as necessary, valid aspects of the learning experience. Haven't heard as much lately about "a well-rounded education," but I think that approach taught us how to think for ourselves and how to teach ourselves, later in life.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Imperial Zeppelin
Date: 2008-01-30 12:03
Back to the OT...
Suffice it to say that in America, long before NCLB, the lion's share of "culture" training came from the home environment and not the school. In my case my love for Broadway came from my parents who usually had the latest cast LP lying around. My love of classical music came from TV and movies, Bernstein's Young Peoples Concerts (Yes, funded by some national endowment), but considerable exposure came from the scores of movies and cartoons, especially the Warner Bros Looney Toons.
Come on, admit it. How many of you have to surpress from singing "Kill da wabbit! Kill da wabbit!" when you hear Die Valkure? I was doing that long before I'd say, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning."
Yes, I would like to see more formal instruction in school, and applaud schools that are able to maintain that. However when financial times get tough, it is logical, but very regrettable, that "culture" instruction goes away. But then I'll fall back on the home environement. Even if children get "culture" instruction at school, when the entire weekend at home is taken up by parent(s) watching sporting events, it's no surprise that the children will follow suit. Getting the children out to concerts and shows, even local performing group ones like high schools and community bands, etc. is an important responsibility of parenting.
Yes, I have tried to be a "good" parent by my definition above but each child turns out different. My S could care less about theatre and classical music and is much more intrigued by sporting events and popular music, but at least he does have a passion for music and can recognize some of the classics. My D is the clarinetist and learned all too well from her father. "Dad you'll love this! I'm going to the Met this weekend to see Die Valkure and you know I'll be fighting singing aloud "Kill da wabbit" every time that theme comes along. Thanks a lot!"
Post Edited (2008-01-30 12:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2008-01-30 12:11
Lelia Loban wrote
> or memorizing CDEFGABC, FACE, Every Good Boy Does Fine
The new mnemonic device is now:
Every Girl Buys Designer Fashions
![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif) ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2008-01-30 13:37
I like the one from King of the Hill (featuring Ani DiFranco):
Every Girl Band Deserves Funding
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Johnson
Date: 2008-01-30 23:16
James,
I don't think you give enough credit to the people. We have routinely voted in changes to large programs. We did it with welfare in the 1990s. We did it with taxes in the 1980s. I have no doubt that we could modify NCLB, especially given the widespread recognition that it needs to be improved. We have no shortage of politicians looking for 'opportunities'.
There are also ways to expand testing without interfering with learning. While technology is too often touted as a cure all when it isn't, there are actually ways to effectively deploy technology to the learning process. Computers can be used to both educate and test simultaneously...for example, my 7-year-old recently wanted to learn bass clef, so I plugged him in to the trainer at www.musictheory.net. It randomly brings up different notes that you have to identify, and keeps track of your score. He was proficient within a week. He's now using the chord trainer to be able to identify the difference between major, minor, augmented, and diminished chords by ear. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be added to our testing arsenal.
I suspect that organizations are accumulating lists of improvements that they would like to see in NCLB. At some point, there will be a major revision. But it would be ridiculous in my opinion to throw the whole thing out...then we'd be left where we were before, and that wasn't working. That was the 'culture' that produced Britney Spears standard for music.
Mike Johnson
Napa, California
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-01-30 23:56
Mike,
The "culture" that brought about many of the pop icons that we ridicule is not a product of the education system but one of agressive and calculated promotion along with an increase of opportunity for advertisment and promotion to enter our environments.
The idea that a lack of standardized testing provided the opportunity for "pop" culture to rise (and "real" culture to fall) is myopic in the extreme. And if it isn't, then it is twice the reason to increase music's presence in the schools!
If you believe that my perception of "the people" is pessimistic, you might understand my concern...has welfare been effectively dealt with? Are taxes no longer an issue?
Laying that argument aside, I'll grant that I'm pessimistic.
However, your optimism of how testing can be implemented is far more out of balance with fact than my pessimism.
All of your ideas are wonderful in theory, but the actual practice is far from the ideal. And although you have many ideas for what MAY happen, you have not once addressed any the issues that ARE occuring.
Blind acceptance is just blind acceptance.
However, I am completely behind you on the clarinet choirs!
James
Gnothi Seauton
Post Edited (2008-01-30 23:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Johnson
Date: 2008-01-31 02:40
James,
I'll have to disagree with you on the relationship between education and pop culture. While there are certainly many factors that drive pop culture, there is a direct correlation with musical knowledge. Jazz is a great example. As people became more aware of the complexities of the genre, jazz evolved in to more exotic and elaborate forms. If you had tried to force bebop or free jazz on to the early New Orleans jazz crowd, it would have been rejected because the musical knowledge was not yet there to perform or appreciate it. I would argue that in most cases, continued development in music occurs as a step by step process, with each new artist pushing a little bit farther than what was done previously. There is a base knowledge that must be present for the arts to flourish and evolve.
As far as my optimism for how testing is performed, it is directly tied to experience. I've seen oral board and hands-on performance testing work very well in the military. I've seen simultaneous online learning and testing with my kids through school programs and through online courses that I have taken personally. I've seen similar concepts used in college courses at the University of California, where I work.
Contrary to your pessimistic idealism, I've seen these concepts applied. And I've seen them work very effectively. With all due respect, it sounds like your "facts" are out of date.
"Blind acceptance" to me refers to people accepting whatever teacher's unions tell them without making the effort to understand what is really going on. I think our kids deserve better. How do you explain the massive outrage at the poor quality of American schools, while the teacher's unions say the system isn't broken at all (and they want more money)?
My intention is not to solve every problem tied to NCLB. My intention is to point out that it would be easier to modify the program than to get rid of it. Unless, of course, you find a way to return education to the states and get rid of the Department of Education...in that case, sign me up, no convincing is required. Until then, I will focus on how to use what we have.
You strike me as someone who is very set in your ways, and I respect the fact that everyone is a product of their experience. I also realize that everybody sees a different slice of the pie, and no one person sees everything. I'm reporting how it looks from my angle. I'm at least glad we can agree on clarinet choirs.
Mike Johnson
Napa, California
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2008-01-31 02:54
clarnibass wrote
"we have the high taxes like in Europe"
really? i think if you actually research this assumption you will find that this is not the case
Fact- tax in NZ is way higher than in USA (from my own experience having worked in both countries).... Europeans who work here, however, often comment about how little tax they pay (though France/Italy/Spain may have less tax, not sure)
dn
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Neal Raskin
Date: 2008-01-31 03:44
sounds like a lot has transpired since i posted last.
Its interesting how we can all agree that there are problems with something, but we all have different ways of trying to get there.
That said, taking a broad look at history... just stay with me.. ;-)
You will find that the governments, laws, and social issues that are more progressive (not liberal) have always taken hold in the end. Since human culture always wants to out-do or make better things that already exist, the old must be constantly edited. When a culture or person refuses to change, they, frankly, will be left in the dust (maybe the dust of a revolution). This is why people of the early 19th C. didn't all like Beethoven's music. Little did they know, music was going down this new path.
Anyway...just throwing some thoughts out there.
I remember a quote from a political cartoon on a poster in my Law class in high school. It had two men conversing and one said to the other, "Just when I get used to change, it all changes."
"Pro-" is the key. No not pro- as in pro-athlete; Pro- as in "proactive" and "progressive." Re- is bad. You don't want to keep repeating or regressing. It gets old.
I say its time for some spring cleaning of the education system in America. I say its also time to keep a foot on the cusp of the future, while keeping a trained eye searching the past for answers.
yay clarinet choir!
Neal
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2008-01-31 05:59
> really? i think if you actually research this
> assumption you will find that this is not the case
I didn't mean that our taxes (by the way, how do you know what our taxes are?) are exactly as high as in Europe, but they are still very high. I simply meant that we have the high taxes ideas from Europe but the lack of government investment in arts like in USA. A contradiction since it's supposed to be one or the other. BTW high taxes are not really high if you receive it back in good ways like education, etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-01-31 15:01
Hello Mike,
"You strike me as someone who is very set in your ways, and I respect the fact that everyone is a product of their experience."
That is a reasonable stand to take, especially since you have not altered your position either!
"With all due respect, it sounds like your "facts" are out of date. "
Mike, you may work in the California Collegiate system, but I teach in four public and one private school. I see the effects of NCLB every day in schools whose demographics vary quite a bit.
Throughout our discourse you have spoken from personal experience and conviction, but you have provided no facts for your argument. What works [extensive testing through multiple formats] for the comparable "small" institution like the military and collegiate classes has no guarantee to work in public schools. Where will the money come from? It goes in ever increasing amounts to programs that will succeed in certification. There has been no discussion in the Fed Govn. about expanding the number of subjects that will be tested! And even if they do, the arts with be the tenth out of ten to be added. By that time, there will be very little to test.
Just because my facts "sound" out of date doesn't mean they are. If you believe my facts are out of date, back it up with some facts to disupte them!
You speak also from the experience and perspective of one who is dissatisfied with a corrupt system in Cali. I can't argue that. You have made no attempt to perceive my point: we didn't/don't have (in VA) the situation that you have in your area. (Please note, I'm not certifying VA's perfection here. Just a different environment.)
"I'll have to disagree with you on the relationship between education and pop culture. While there are certainly many factors that drive pop culture, there is a direct correlation with musical knowledge."
To minimize the roll that media has in the creation of cultural perception and action and subsequently assign the greater responsibility to the education system is grossly out of proportion. There are many factors we could discuss to this end, but here is the contradiction that I can't get over:
If American "pop" culture's rise is directly related to the amount (or lack thereof) of musical education in the public school system, then how can you support a Federal Program that is marginalizing and eliminating musical education?
I have to infer that you can because you find NCLB's impact in your state (accountability for schools that have failed their goals and missreported their results) is of greater benefit than the reduction of musical/artistic education.
How hard do you think it is to restart a music program once the program has been completely closed? (if you think THAT'S not happening...)
I believe you would like to continue to modify NCLB until if fits all needs. I would maintain that music in many places will have been dealt a death blow in the amount of time it will take to progress that far.
Here is, again, a wealth of information about NCLB's effect on the arts for anyone to read:
http://www.americansforthearts.org/services/arts_education/arts_education_015.asp
Mike, we may have to agree to disagree and then combine forces to assault the Dep't of Education. How much do you have going on this summer? I'm not free until then!
And again, yeah clarinet choirs!
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Johnson
Date: 2008-01-31 18:11
James,
You claim to be presenting facts. I see lots of opinion. Since you seem to have trouble finding facts, I will hold your hand...here are some facts about NCLB from the 2007 Nation's Report Card:
- In reading, scores for 4th graders were the highest on record.
- In math, scores for 4th and 8th graders were the highest on record.
- African-American and Hispanic students are making significant progress, posting all-time highs in a number of categories.
- In 4th grade reading, the achievement gap between white and African-American students is at an all-time low.
- In math, 4th and 8th grade African-American students achieved their highest scores to date.
- In 4th grade reading and in 4th and 8th grade math, Hispanic students set new achievement records.
- In reading, Hispanic 8th graders matched their all-time high.
Again, NCLB is working. Things may be peachy keen in Virginia, but this is a national issue (until you find a way to dismantle the Department of Education). There have been numerous recommendations for improving the program submitted to Congress, and these will be evaluated as NCLB goes up for renewal. One of these recommendations is to increase FLEXIBILITY for states, which will help with your situation since Virginia has such perfect schools. The funding structure needs to be improved, and there are plenty of people brighter than me on such matters working on it.
I am not willing to throw out a program that has had such positive results. We've been trying to do this for decades, and failed every time up until now. I'd rather improve a WORKING program than discard it and start from scratch. As much as I love music, I do think that reading and math have higher priority. However, I'd like to see some solid standards applied to music, and better recognition of music and the arts as a vital part of our education. This is not a contradiction...this is common sense.
If you have a better solution (more realistic that abolishing the Department of Education), I'd love to hear it.
Mike Johnson
Napa, California
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-01-31 19:21
From the website provided above (as well as National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, and the National School Boards Administration) here is substantiating research to the ill effects of NCLB and its' relationship to the arts:
- [NCLB] has evolved...a measurement framework that bases its assessment of school quality on a student's performance on a single assessment; and mandates a series of overbroad sanctions...not yet proven to have a significant impact on improving student performance and school performance. (NSBA)
-71% of schools that are reporting success are also reporting they've reduced instructional time in other areas to achieve that success.
-Of school districts with at least one school identified for improvement, arts/music receives the least amount of instruction time per week.
-As well, 30 percent of districts with at least one identified school—those with students most responsive to the benefits of the arts—have decreased instructional time for art and music. (www.americansforthearts.org)
-Duplicate and redundant testing: Too much instructional time in classrooms is taken up by testing that is redundant or fails to yield timely or useful information.
- Pay up: As of January 2006, the difference between the amount that Congress promised for NCLB programs and what it has actually provided for these programs is $40 billion. Student's in areas of great poverty are also getting the least amount of money from the Fed. (AFT)
-Teacher testimonial from Fl (anonymous): "The development of the child has been reduced to teaching them only what is being tested... At some schools in my district, students scoring a Level 1 or 2 on the FCAT do not get to go to fine arts (music, PE, media, art, computers, etc.) or recess."
Mike, we're going to have to agree to disagree, but no wonder there's no money for music.
The fact that NCLB is better for some is not necessarily a ringing endorsment. Better scores for certain demographics in some classes...but at what cost to the whole?
James
Gnothi Seauton
Post Edited (2008-01-31 19:24)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-01-31 19:41
In my haste I overlooked what should be my most obvious point in our discussion:
Mike,
You have provided data that supports NCLB's gains in reading and writing.
I have never disputed that there has been progress in those areas...in fact, I've never even discussed it!
You have neither provided any facts that refute my statements: NCLB reduces overall teaching time, educates the students in how to take tests, and subordinates the role and importance of other classes (Of course, the one that hits closest to home for me is music & arts).
Not to mention that the program is federally mandated: they are exacting penalties of poorly performing schools, and then stiffing us on the tab!
Thanks for holding my hand through all that, I'm sure it must have been difficult! Again, what will the cost be for our collective culture twenty years from now?
Agreeing to disagree James
Gnothi Seauton
Post Edited (2008-01-31 20:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2008-01-31 21:28
Mike & James: I've been following this debate with considerable interest, but one question keeps popping up . . . I recall reading reports that some tests have been simplified over time which kept scores at least level when actual achievement had declined. In some cases, the level of academic achievement had declined considerably, but "dumbed down" tests showed scores that increased over time, which rendered the whole comparison invalid.
In order for any comparison of educational accomplishment to be scientifically evaluated, standard conditions must be stricktly maintained, meaning the tests must be carefully controlled to maintain the same level of difficulty throughout the periods of time being evaluated and compared.
I don't recall which educational testing program(s) were the ones that failed to maintain their rigor over time, but I hope none of the ones in the above discussion are among them.
Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Johnson
Date: 2008-01-31 23:35
James,
Yes, I know you didn't mention reading and math. But you did say that you want to dismantle NCLB. To do so would give back all of the gains we have made in those two key areas, which most would agree are without a doubt the foundation of everything else. My point, again, is that I would like to see improvement in music and the arts similar to NCLB's results with math and reading...and throwing out the program that seems to be the best way of getting there is not a reasonable option.
You say "NCLB reduces overall teaching time"
-But, we're now performing better in reading and math. Better performance in less time...perhaps the quality of education has improved?
You say NCLB "educates the students in how to take tests"
-And you take tests throughout college...perhaps we should throw those out too, since they're probably using test-taking strategies as well? As I stated previously, if the test have large question banks and the questions are based on course objectives, then I don't see a problem. Using a variety of questioning methods also minimizes the focus on testing technique. This is a relatively minor tweek for a motivated politician.
You say NCLB "subordinates the role and importance of other classes"
-Not exactly true. According to the website that you provided, "Education and arts supporters gained footing in the nation's education work when NCLB was passed, listing the arts as one of the 'core academic subjects' of public education."
It also says, "The No Child Left Behind Act’s definition of core academic subjects includes the arts. In this respect, the arts have equal billing with reading, math, science, and other disciplines. And this definition could lead to a huge improvement in national education policy. This means that whenever federal education programs (such as teacher training, school reform, and technology programs) are targeted to “core academic subjects,” the arts may be eligible to receive funds."
And you're now willing to turn your back on this?
Regarding funding, I have agreed previously that there are funding issues that need to be sorted out. Your website says, "The definition of core academic subjects is included in the glossary of the bill, which tells local and state education decision-makers how to interpret the concepts used throughout the Act. However, these decision-makers may not be aware that the arts are identified as a core subject in the Act and, as a result, may be unaware that many types of federal education funds may be used for arts education."
Again, I don't see how throwing out NCLB would help the arts. It seems to me like it would be a step backwards. Tweeking NCLB appears to be a much more beneficial and realistic approach.
Mike Johnson
Napa, California
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Johnson
Date: 2008-01-31 23:42
Eu,
You bring up a very valid and interesting point. I don't have a clear answer. I certainly agree that comparing results from different testing methods can be dicey. I did come across an interesting article on the subject a while back, though:
here
Mike Johnson
Napa, California
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
