The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, reaffirmed the status of arts classes as “core academic subjects” alongside English, math, social studies, science, and other content areas.
Over the past decade, the body of research surrounding the power of the arts to foster social-emotional learning, combat absenteeism, and generate an engaged, positive school community has continued to grow. For instance, a study spearheaded by the Kennedy Center’s Changing Education Through the Arts (CETA) Program, analyzed a decade of research based on sixteen participating schools, more than 400 teachers, and more than 3,000 students. Data collected from interviews, surveys, grades, test scores, and attendance records indicates that integrating the arts had a profound impact on closing achievement gaps, particularly for students from low-income families and English language learners. Moreover, when compared to their peers who were not regularly receiving arts instruction, teachers participating in CETA reported a “more positive and cohesive” learning environment, citing increased peer collaboration and improved social skills in the classroom.
Likewise, in 2012, a study conducted by the National Endowment for the Arts analyzed four K–12 longitudinal datasets provided by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The research, which focused on youth at risk of dropping out of school, finds that high school students partaking in arts courses tended to have higher grade point averages and were at least five times more likely to graduate as compared to their peers who did not earn arts credits. While causation between arts instruction and this data cannot be proven explicitly, the study highlights a strong correlation between arts involvement and high school graduation rates.
However, despite these promising developments, some districts still make cuts to their arts programs when faced with budget constraints and other challenges. While a recent report by the National Center for Education Statistics showed that the vast majority of schools nationwide offer some type of arts programming (94 percent), the quality of programming provided varies widely. This has given way to an economic and racial opportunity gap in the field. For instance, a 2009 study about arts education conducted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office finds that in the years studied, the schools that cut time for arts instruction were more likely to serve high percentages of students of color, students from low-income families, and students labeled as “in need of academic improvement.”
So why should schools prioritize an arts curriculum when students are struggling to make academic gains in content areas like math and reading?
Elizabeth Whitford, the executive director of Arts Corps, an organization dedicated to closing the arts opportunity gap in Seattle, Washington, strives to answer this question. “What we learn through the arts is that—because it’s so centered in self-expression and student voice—it’s a very motivating modality through which young people can learn,” Whitford explains. “And because there’s often no right answer in the arts, it really promotes creative, critical- and process-oriented thinking—the types of transferable twenty-first-century skills that young people need to have stepping forward.”
Two years ago, Art Corps launched a program known as the Creative Schools Initiative, which predominantly serves students of color and students from low-income families. This multi-year initiative, funded in part by ED’s Arts in Education Model Development and Dissemination Grant, imbeds teaching artists into four of Seattle’s economically disadvantaged middle schools to assist classroom teachers in integrating the arts into other core content areas. According to Whitford, the results of the initiative are promising, including improved attendance rates and higher levels of engagement in their academics.
When implemented well, the arts bring a sense of community into the classroom, foster decision-making skills, and promote cultural awareness that transcends the walls of the school. Furthermore, for some students arts education helps them get through the day, which sheds light on the improved attendance records seen in schools served by Art Corps and CETA. As Whitford explains, “This is the modality through which some students learn best, and yet they don’t have access. So in taking away the arts, you’re taking away the joy in learning for those young people, the thing that would make them get up and go to school.”
As ESSA moves through the implementation process, states should be aware of opportunities to promote arts education and reaffirm its status as a core academic subject, particularly through the Title IV, Part A Student Success and Academic Enrichment (SSAE) Grants program.
This grant program, originally authorized by the U.S. Congress for $1.65 billion, encompasses several older grant programs (like the Advanced Placement Test Fee Program) in addition to funding several new areas of student learning. Schools can use SSAE grants to fund programs that ensure a well-rounded curriculum, promote a healthy school climate, or integrate technology in the classroom.
Unfortunately, SSAEG—which could support arts education and other school climate initiatives—is currently at-risk for being drastically underfunded by Congress, with both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives proposing just $300 million and $1 billion, respectively. Failure to fund SSAEG at the full amount could reduce critical funding for arts education nationwide.
In helping students establish a sense of identity, arts education simultaneously helps schools establish a sense of community—a vital component in the quest for positive school climate. If fully funded, SSAEG could allow more schools to launch and prioritize these initiatives across the country, providing millions of underserved districts with the opportunity to transform their school environments and assist their students in cultivating twenty-first–century skills.
Since almost everyone has at some point in their life spent a good amount of time in a K-12 classroom, it’s safe to assume that many believe they have knowledge and insight into what works and what doesn’t. Is it also safe to assume that these perceptions are likely to be a little off the mark? Probably, but very few if any studies exist that answer this question one way or the other. Ulrich Boser, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and author of Learn Better, recently conducted a survey to find out what the general public really knows about effective teaching and learning.
Using Amazon Mechanical Turk, Boser, assisted by a team of researchers, polled 3000 people, a sample weighted by race, income and education level, about their opinions on a variety of classroom-related issues. Boser believes it is the first survey to guage the public’s understanding of teaching and learning.
Overall, the responses are interesting, maybe a little discouraging, but not altogether surprising. To Boser, they collectively reveal a general misunderstanding about what makes effective classrooms and effective educators. The implications are important because misperceptions feed off each other, whether they begin with the public, politicians or the media. Furthermore, Boser says there is an abundance of research into the “science of learning” that should be gaining more traction in our schools, not to mention teacher preparation programs.
Here are some of the highlights from the survey. What do you think they say about the public’s understanding of effective teaching and learning?
Praise and Content Mastery
Nearly all respondents believe that are “relatively skilled” at identifying effective teaching strategies, and 72% say they are “above average” in evaluating instructional practice. But when they were asked to evaluate specific strategies, Boser says things go awry.
For example, 72% said praising students for “being smart” is an effective instructional strategy and 39% believe that mastering basic content is overrated, agreeing with the statement that “facts gets in the way of understanding.”
On the first point, Boser cites the work of Carol Dweck, the Stanford professor whose research has shown that praise – or the wrong type of praise – can actually be detrimental. “Too often nowadays, praise is given to students who are putting forth effort, but not learning, in order to make them feel good in the moment,” Dweck recently wrote.
What did those respondents mean when they appeared to shrug-off the importance of facts? It’s possible some are commenting on rote memorization, which advocates of deeper learning believe should be scaled back. Nonetheless, facts areneeded for effective understanding, and the idea that academic content is practically obsolete has its followers, but is a view not supported by the evidence, Boser says.
What Makes an Effective Teacher?
Forty percent of respondents believe good instructional skills are more important than subject mastery, agreeing with the statement, “a great teacher can teach any subject.”
Also, many underestimated the amount of formal training it takes to become an effective educator, with more than one-quarter believing six months of practice teaching is sufficient preparation. This belief, Boser writes, “stands in stark contrast to the significant body of research that shows that novice teachers are less effective than their more experienced peers, as well as the experts who believe that most people need at least a year of residency training.”
Boser believes the responses demonstrate how devalued teaching – a craft that involves a lot of science, Boser says – has become. “If people believe that it’s easy for someone to perform well in the classroom, then society shouldn’t reward teaching because the job doesn’t require rigorous training. In contrast, it’s widely accepted that doctors and lawyers need a great deal of training to succeed, and people in those fields get paid a lot more.”
Fixed Intelligence
One-quarter of the American population believes that “[i]ntelligence is fixed at birth,” despite the fact that there’s plenty of research that shows that intelligence can be developed. Boser points to interventions such as preschool and reading to young children that demonstrate clear benefits.
Do Learning Styles Exist?
According to the survey, 90 percent of respondents believe that students should receive information in the classroom in their own “learning style.” Boser says the research on this issue is clear: learning styles don’t really exist.
“It’s important to note that researchers have a very specific definition of learning styles, which revolves around student preference for landing new skills and knowledge in a certain manner,” Boser says. “This doesn’t mean that everyone learns in the exact same way. Some people have more prior knowledge. Others have more inherent interest. This will shape how they learn – and how teachers teach.”
Top 5 Myths and Lies About Teachers and Their Profession.
The debate over education is critical, but unfortunately the widespread dissemination of misinformation. Consequently, many citizens conception of K-12 public education in the United States is based more on myth than reality. Here are some of the myths pertaining specifically to teachers and their profession.
How to improve D.C.’s flawed school accountability plan
WASHINGTON POST – In an opinion piece, Michael J. Petrilli and Brandon L. Wright of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute raised concerns over the District of Columbia’s proposed ESSA plan. Petrilli and Wright argued that the District’s accountability plan doesn’t “do nearly enough for high achievers, especially those growing up in poverty.”
They proposed three changes to fix this problem:
when calculating school grades, make growth of individual students from one year to the next count for at least 50 percent;
for the academic achievement indicator, give schools additional credit for getting more students to Level 5 on the PARCC assessment, instead of exclusively rewarding schools for students who merely reach proficiency; and
further signal that high achievers matter by making them a visible, trackable subgroup, akin to special education students or English language learners, and by publishing school ratings based on their progress.
The goal, the groups said, is to serve as an external check on the federal peer review process, and to look at whether states are going beyond compliance with the law to really set up a system that will accomplish their visions for K-12 education.
In general, the rubric will favor strong accountability systems, tied to college- and career-ready standards for all students. Reviewers will look for ambitious and achievable goals and for “guardrails” to focus attention on students who need the most help. They’ll also be on the lookout for bad accountability systems that can be “gamed” in unproductive ways and systems that push all students to a diploma even if they don’t learn anything along the way.
“The peer review process that the department will do is important; it’s required by the statute. I think it’s also important to have a review process that looks at not just are you complying with the minimum requirements of the law, but is what’s being proposed likely to do what’s right for kids, and that’s what this review is intended to do,” said Phillip Lovell, vice president of policy development and government relations at the Alliance for Excellent Education and one of the more than two dozen reviewers.
The two groups promise a “candid review,” though it won’t cover everything required to be in state plans.
Although the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was hailed on both sides of the aisle for restoring balance to the state-federal relationship in K-12 education — loosening unworkable, prescriptive mandates under No Child Left Behind and providing states and districts with more autonomy to craft tailored solutions to their unique needs — that bipartisan consensus now seems to have disintegrated.
From the contentious, partisan confirmation hearing of Secretary Betsy DeVos to a party-line repeal of final accountability, reporting, and school improvement regulations, to a bitter fight over the previous administration’s proposed rules for ESSA’s supplement-not-supplant provisions, it’s easy to assume the days of common edu-ground are gone.
One thing these fights have in common, however, is that they center on accountability — the stick, not the carrot — and whether the federal government or states should wield that stick. Yes, accountability is incredibly important and proven to be effective. But it’s not the only opportunity in ESSA to improve student outcomes, nor the sole piece of the law worth paying attention to.
Struggling Hoosier students can be helped with more focused classes and perhaps mentorships with teachers, but it will come at additional costs.
That assessment came Monday night at Indiana University Kokomo as 100 educators and parents met to discuss the Every Student Succeeds Act, the federal replacement for No Child Left Behind.
The Indiana Department of Education is hosting discussions that may help mold the state’s approach to ESSA, which was signed into law in December 2015.
Like its predecessor, ESSA holds states accountable for high standards, maintains state accountability systems, requires annual tests in Grades 3-8 and in high school, and sustains support for struggling schools and development of teachers. It also allows for more state input and direction.
But through ESSA, states can determine how they want to reach policy goals and have more local control in their approach, officials said.
“ESSA is similar to No Child in that you still have accountability,” said Adam Baker, Indiana Department of Education press secretary. “You still have assessments. You still have the end result, which is ensuring children are academically sound and prepared for the future.”
The state is to send its plans to the U.S. Department of Education by Sept. 18 but will have the proposal online by July.
Monday night, the group gathered at the IUK campus to discuss how to measure a school’s success, how to support all students and how to improve schools in need, among other issues.
In the latter, a group of about 12 suggested that struggling students, notably those of low socioeconomic status, could be in classes for a longer part of the day…
Next Monday, states will begin officially submitting their plans for the Every Student Succeeds Act to the U.S. Department of Education. And then comes the, umm … fun part. Those plans will be examined through a wonky-but-important process known as “peer review,” in which a team of educators and experts essentially takes a close look at a state’s vision, to see if it complies with the law.
On Tuesday, the Education Department now controlled by Team Trump released guidance spelling out exactly what those reviewers should be looking for. File this under technical-but-good-to-know: The guidance only covers “Title I” (the main section of the law that includes accountablity, school improvement, testing, and more), Title III (the portion of the law that deals with English-language learners), and the portion that deals with homeless students. The other programs in the law, including Title II (which governs many of the teacher portions of the law) will be reviewed by the department.
First, a quick look at how the peer-reveiw process is supposed to work, according to ESSA: The “peers” are selected by the department. And according to the law, they can include parents, teachers, principals, other school leaders, representatives of state educational agencies, school districts, and the broader community, including the business community. They can also include researchers who are familiar with standards, assessments, and accountability, as well as folks with expertise in meeting the needs of disadvantaged students, children in special education, and English-learners…
Heralded as a Christmas miracle, the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December 2015 marked a turning point in federal education policy. The latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESSA replaced the much-maligned No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and returned significant control over education back to the states.
Join AEI as Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Chairman Lamar Alexander, one of the law’s chief architects, discusses ESSA and American education. Following his remarks, an expert panel will deliberate on the new law and what it means for states, families, and students.
Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.
In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset.
The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials.
AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees.
U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos who recently traveled to Florida to highlight dual-enrollment and career-readiness programs is hitting the road again Monday, this time to Kimberly Hampton Elementary School in Fort Bragg, N.C.
DeVos plans to visit classrooms, read to students, meet with school officials, and chat with parents.
The visit will be DeVos’ first to a school run by the Department of Defense. And her timing isn’t a coincidence: April, which starts Saturday, is the Month of the Military Child…
![[ESSA] State Plan Versions That Have Been Released So Far](https://nnpa.org/essa/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/essa-posts-featured_0060_iStock-460421987-1-1080x600.png)
