Keeping the Arts in Our Schools:
The Work Continuesby Deborah Fisher, MAAE Executive Director
I recently became aware of a Missouri School Improvement Program 5 Update from the Missouri National Education Association (MNEA) that contradicts the MAAE reports on MSIP 5.
The MNEA article describes the basic points of MSIP 5. Under point # 2, “Music, art and physical
education”, the writer states that “In MSIP 4, districts were required to provide art, music, and physical education to all K-8 students, taught by teachers certified in those areas.” This is not true. As we in the MAAE have learned from DESE, school districts have not been held accountable for resource standards, in which the fine arts requirement previously existed, since 2006. In MSIP 4, school districts were accredited based on the performance standards: Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) achievement, graduation rates, attendance rates and several other measures. Now, since the Missouri legislature passed Revised Statute 161.209 (in August 2010), DESE may not, by law, hold districts accountable for resource standards.
The MNEA article accurately reports that MSIP 5 includes assessments in fine arts and physical education. However, the writer inaccurately says the assessment piece “replaces” the fine arts and physical education requirements. How can assessments replace requirements that have not existed for the past five years? During the State Board of Education meetings, the SBoE members have indicated their desire to enforce fine arts (and health/pe) requirements; however, as Dr. Nicastro, DESE Commissioner, reminded the board, their role is limited and they cannot require arts instruction.
It was Dr. Nicastro’s comments to the SBoE in January that first alerted me to the legislation taking the power to enforce arts requirements away from the SBoE. Since that time, I have written articles about MoRS 161.209 and have reported that DESE and the SBoE cannot penalize school districts for not meeting resource standards. With this knowledge, we must present our argument for fine arts and health/pe requirements to the people who can make the decision: the Missouri General Assembly.
This does not preclude us from letting DESE and SBoE membersknow about our desire to have requirements for instructional time in the arts; we just need to be careful about how we present the message. The SBoE is on our side; they, too, want an arts requirement for our schools.
The MNEA article states that students do not need more testing and that “MSIP 5 could require the districts to report the percent of students in each grade that receive a minimum amount of instruction in each of these areas.” How this can be implemented when Mo RS 161.209 does not allow districts to be held accountable for minimum instruction times? Just reporting the number of minutes without accountability being attached to the numbers will not have the intended effect of maintaining arts instruction or teachers.
Let’s talk about testing. Why test? The original intent of the Fine Arts MAP was to improve instruction in the arts. I believe this is a good reason to test. When you visit your physician, you expect to have your blood pressure checked. This is a test that is designed to improve delivery of medical services. If you believe teachers can improve delivery of instruction based on information (data), then testing has a purpose.
You and I know that testing in the arts is doable. Missouri developed a different kind of test. There are no questions about dates composers lived or what artist created a specific painting. Instead, the Fine Arts MAP asks students to identify the mood of a composition or compare two art forms. The test is not perfect, but it can be used to improve instruction.
I feel compelled to remind you of the mission of the Missouri Alliance for Arts Education: To develop and implement a statewide comprehensive arts education plan with a goal of making the arts a basic part of education for all Missourians.
We have determined that, at this time, one of the best ways to ensure students in Missouri public schools receive not just minutes of instruction in the arts, but good arts instruction, is to implement a fine arts assessment.
I learned about the MNEA article from an e-mail that questioned the MAAE position on fine arts testing. The sender wrote: “This [MNEA article] does not read like [the] Fine Arts MAP is going to save our positions.” Saving jobs may be the purpose of the MNEA, but the Missouri Alliance for Arts Education wants to save arts education in our schools. We want students to have the opportunity to participate in the visual and performing arts.
Although we do not put retaining jobs as a part of our mission, a byproduct of saving arts education for our children is maintaining teachers in our schools. Let’s work together to do both.