Key Ideas and Details:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.6.1
Cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
Taylor suggested that we use the same wording and objectives but change the product to an art one. For example, the first listed above would be:
"Cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the artwork says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the artwork."
I like the idea as it defines very clearly what the kids should be learning how to do. Art teaching can sometimes be a little scattered and vague if the teacher doesn't have a strong, purposeful curriculum in place. I have seen classrooms with a curriculum based on "borrowed projects from the Internet" and feel that there are depths that go unexplored. Using CC standards would be very helpful in making the curriculum unified, go a bit deeper in a more consistent way, and help students become familiar with CC lingo that they will see on their standardized tests.
What I don't like is Taylor's belief that this is how art has to function in contemporary and future schools to survive. He leaves out the benefits of art making that sound extremely hippy-dippy, but that science is starting to show as very real. I've posted about different studies showing the physical benefits of looking at art and creating art. They are real. There are many students who NEED and VALUE the time given to them in the school day to create BECAUSE IT MATTERS TO THEM TO MAKE THINGS. In a related article that can be read here.
We will accomplish little if we only align our energies with social remediation without significantly deepening students’ academic capacities ……. and we can. After all, if you don’t think arts educators should be held accountable for overall student achievement, why should they be working in a school? Our artistic ability is contained in the one percent of our DNA that distinguishes us from our nearest primate relative – the chimpanzee. In many profound ways, it is this quality that makes us, us.
More than ever, we have the chance to be seen as able to contribute something much more valuable than “enrichment” – an appellation that is, in reality, only a euphemism for “non-essential ."
This passage from the above category bothers me a bit, too:
However, all this turmoil gave birth to the “teaching artist” who would become the primary interface between arts providers and classrooms. Neither completely an educator nor wholly a practicing artist, this type of arts education has increasingly become a separate employment category for those idealists intent on changing the world through the arts. Their desire to make a difference is shared with the majority of educators who labor mightily in dysfunctional educational systems that promote data over efficacy and emphasize time spent on documentation over time spent on teaching and learning.
The reason art education works for so many students, especially ones who are non-academically focused, is because it encompasses the processes present in the Common Core without getting hung up on the lingo. It requires careful analysis, evidence discovery and recitation, drawing inferences, and understanding context. While I am sure getting on board and including actual terms seen in PARCC testing would be helpful to bridge some gaps in understanding, I think to say our value is based on doing this misses the mark completely.
The "enrichment" paradigm exists in the way art is scheduled in school, only. Art teachers see kids very briefly in their school weeks, and the goals of art education have been greatly increased over the years to create a massive gulf between what is hoped for and what can realistically be accomplished. Taylor was asked for evidence that his suggestions actually helped students on their tests, and he admitted he had none. I know that the studio art environment has helped some of my students survive LIFE not just a test, and I believe that to be more important.
What will you make today?