Two Articles Induce a Wee Rant by Me.

Sometimes you read an article, and then at the end there's something that makes you go, "huh?" like the sound of the needle skipping off the record (you know those old disc things we used to put music on).

So I was reading this article in the NY Times, called "U.S. Is Urged to Raise Teachers’ Status." It's a short read, check it out.

It's kind of nice, more stuff about how we blather on about how important teachers are and then pay them nothing. No news there.

The "Huh?" moment came at the very end, when some expert type used the term, "higher student outcomes."

I have to admit this made me get a rash. What the heck is a "student outcome?" Do they get a star on their belly like a Sneetch?

Good grief. We have really lost it when our discussions of a topic go off that far into the weeds of corporate doublespeak.

And then there was this other article, entitled "Let Kids Rule the School." This one was about taking a small group of students and engaging them in something called an "Independent Project," where they created their own curriculum under the watchful eye of their teachers.

This one pointed out how much happier and more engaged students are when they have ownership of what they are doing. Um, no news there either, I'm afraid.

I had a lot of questions come up, though - like, is it practical to do this on a wider scale? They only did this with 8 students in one high school. Do you have to make sure the students can handle it? What do you do if they are not getting their work done? Do you dump them back into memorize-and-test land?

Anyway, both nice articles, I guess, neither says anything new. Maybe to make real change we have to say the same things over and over for decades to rev up the engine. I don't know.

In the meantime, I'm going to go focus on my "higher breakfast outcome" or something.

Have We Forgotten that Education is a Two-Way Conversation?

We hear so much every day about how education has to be a partnership between schools and families - how students have to contribute to their own success - how it takes a village - how it's all about good teachers, no it's all about involved parents, no it's about having the right metrics, etc. etc. etc. etc.

All this partnering, and involvement, and measurement, and so on - and it's all aimed in the same direction, down the street of "success." The "product" is these students who grow up to be "successful." And we've defined what that means - they need to get high test scores, get good grades, get into a good college, get a good job.

It's that "good" part that gets a little problematic. What if it were more about getting into "the right" college, and pursuing "the right" career?

Well, that would require a two-way conversation.

Because in order for a student to grow up into his or her best self, we need to know who that self is. We have to listen.

That is what arts education is for. It is to give young people the power to bring their own voice to their educational conversation, to reveal things about themselves, and to show those things to the people in the world who care most about them. Their mentors, teachers, families.

If you don't have that side of the equation, you don't know what "success" is.

It also seems that every time someone talks about the best teacher they ever had, there's a pattern to it - that teacher saw something unique in them, didn't give up on them, brought out their best. That teacher listened. And as a result, that student did better. Performed better, learned better, became a better student and a better person. Because someone listened and noticed.

Arts education allows us to listen to one another, and to speak in ways that are safe, and constructive, and deep and detailed. And it lets students bring their own voice to the table.

When we cut the arts out of our education process, we take away each student's unique voice. We take away a process of disovery that should be taking place within each young person. And we close off an avenue of rich, personal, valuable conversation about who each student is. We stop listening.

Critical point: It's not about whether every student is "good" at painting or playing an instrument. It is that the process of creation, bringing music to life, making something unique, is good FOR them. Here's where we get in the way again - we want them to be "advanced," to "achieve," in the arts. We don't treat the arts as a means of self-discovery, they are just another item for the college application. A way to win awards. To achieve.

I know these days it's all about the money and the test scores and the budget cuts and government mandates and all this. But I argue that if every student got thirty minutes a day to create, to engage in some creative activity, write something, paint something, make something, each student would take a step toward finding a voice and sharing it with the world. And that this acknowledgement, and voice, would make them better students, and better people.

I submit that a two-way educational conversation results in a better educational outcome, in all aspects of learning and development. That hearing and seeing our young people gives them power to become something. That giving them the means to express themselves is not a waste of budget or a nice-to-have, it's a core part of the interaction between the education system telling them what they need to do, and the students telling us who they are.

If our students don't get to hold up their end of the conversation during their education, how will they do so in that big world where we want them to be so successful? Let's stop giving them the anwers, and start asking them some questions. And give them the instrument, the paper, the time and space, the paints, the room to move, the time to write, or whatever they need, to discover for us - and themselves - some answers.

A Sense of Possibility

A while back, I heard an interview on the radio with Drew Gilpin Faust, president of Harvard. The interviewer asked her what exactly makes Harvard Harvard - why is it worth it to work so hard to get in there?

She answered, the sense of possibiity. That bringing together talented students from all over the world creates a unique environment of possibility and potential, and encourages each and every student grow his or her sense of what is possible. And that this is where the greatest ideas and achievements come from.

Then I saw a talk by Joan Sullivan, founder of the Bronx Academy of Letters, a public school in the poorest congressional district in America, that is ranked among the top high schools in New York City.

She said the same thing... that what makes her school successful is fostering a sense of possibility. She sends students to see colleges and work sites and to participate in study programs out of state and, in short, shows them the world.

Then I thought about 826 Valencia, where I volunteer illustrating books for class field trips. The students develop a story together, write their own endings, and become published authors in the space of two hours.

Again, this exercise is about possibility. You can just see the kids' heads growing as they are there, as the idea of being a published author takes root. Many of them also have never hung out with a professional artist before, so this possibility opens up in their minds, too.

This, I think, is the core driver of achievement for young students: the sense of Possibility. In areas that are infested with gangs and where families stay in their houses, the world is a very small place. In areas where the parents found companies and go on trips abroad, the world is a very big place. And there are many things in between.

We place so much emphasis on academics, on "learning," in our schools these days. As if kids just need to be pushed harder to absorb the material in order to be "smarter" and achieve more and score higher. Regardless of what they see as possible for them in the larger world.

But kids with a sense of possibiity will absorb more material, not because they are smarter, but because they can see where it leads. They can see a world where the ability to speak well, or to make an argument, or to design a technology, has real application. There is a backdrop, or a destination, a world out there to participate in.

So maybe our job in educating our children is to open up the world to them, and then let the academics apply to the possibilities, rather than the other way around.